Fundamentalists and the KJV Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter RHisComingHome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lak611 said:
Nowadays, most KJV Bibles do not have the preface. Even to a Protestant, "To the most high and mighty Prince . . " sounds odd, especially to an American.
Click to expand...
Which is sad because this bible has been systamatically destroyed by it’s upholders over time.

Everyone knows it once held the Deuterocanon in it’s pages
(as “Apocrypha”), One poster mentioned it’s rendering of 2 Machabees, or Maccabees in modern spelling, and that was removed too…

Only recently did Penguin books release it’s “1611 edition”… a full version for once.
 
colliric said:
Which is sad because this bible has been systamatically destroyed by it’s upholders over time.

Everyone knows it once held the Deuterocanon in it’s pages
(as “Apocrypha”), One poster mentioned it’s rendering of 2 Machabees, or Maccabees in modern spelling, and that was removed too…

Only recently did Penguin books release it’s “1611 edition”… a full version for once.
Click to expand...
In addition to the 1611 edition, I also own a KJV published by Cambridge which has the Apocrypha. The Cambridge Bible is the KJV that most people are familiar with (the 1769 revision). KJV with Apocrypha is still available in editions besides the 1611 edition.
 
According to The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, edited Antonia Fraser, King James was gay.
 
Gastro said:
According to The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, edited Antonia Fraser, King James was gay.
Click to expand...
I am told by reliable sources that he was also under the impression that he owned a unicorn.
 
Gastro said:
According to The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, edited Antonia Fraser, King James was gay.
Click to expand...
It implies that he was active, although it doesn’t say for certain. Based on his life, I would not be suprised. I don’t want to offend people who are gay and chaste.
 
deb1 said:
Techo, a person can have attractions to the same sex and never act on those urges. I think that is what the poster is referring to.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, I just thought it was kind of a funny post.
 
The accusations (plausible but unprovable) against King James are well known in the KJVO circles, but such accusations are neither here nor there. His only connection with the new translation was to favor its production.
 
The King James Controversy can be a very sore subject for Christians of different denominations. Temple Baptist Church of Knoxville, TN takes a stand for the King James Bible of 1611 because of clear evidence of God’s hand on the preservation of His Word by this version. I plan (Lord willing) for this page to grow in information. Currently, Presented here are several main reasons for supporting the KJV. I also give a couple of reference works for anybody interested in studying the topic further.

Fables And Facts
About The King James Bible
Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It’s very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening.

Originally we published only one tract about the King James Bible. The tract is titled How I Know The King James Bible Is The Word Of God, and it presents some rather strong arguments for the KJV. Then we offered a second tract, titled Let’s Compare Bibles. This tract shows how the modem Bible translations are literally attacking God’s word! Both of these tracts are still available, and are free upon request.
Now, by the grace of God, we are able to offer a third tract on the King James issue. We call it Fables And Facts About The King James Bible. It’s purpose is to better educate Christians about the KJV by clearing up some of the fables that have been spread by the critics. Far too many Christians are accepting the Authorized Version by faith alone, rather than working and studying to become more grounded in some of the basic FACTS about this important issue. The following information should be helpful to the believer who desires to be readily armed with TRUTH.

FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611.

FACT: The so-called “revisions” of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn’t start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.
 
FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.

FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. Its also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, “Has God honored these ‘older’ and ‘better’ manuscripts throughout Church History?”

The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England–B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the “older” and “better” manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.
 
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful I work of such pagan Greek “scholars” as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of “the Bible” from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin’s work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the “Egyptian” or “Hesychian” type text) found it’s way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new “Bible” versions in your local “Christian” bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone “correcting” the King James Bible with “older” or “more authoritative” manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.
 
FABLE: New translations are needed to correct the errors and contradictions in the King James Bible.

FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many “Christian” colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.

FABLE: New Translations are needed to bring the archaic Old English language up to date. People have trouble understanding the language of the King James Bible.

FACT: The King James language is NOT hard to understand. Most of the so-called “archaic” words are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn’t in tune with their high-minded vocabulary. In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says the King James language is EASIER to understand than the new versions.
We certainly agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn’t it be? It’s the WORD OF GOD!

FABLE: The King James Bible cannot be infallible because the translators were only men, and all men are sinners. The human element prevents the KJV from being infallible.

FACT: If this is true, then even the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS in Hebrew and Greek were not infallible, because they too were penned by men!
The fact of the matter is that the King James translators were only INSTRUMENTS of preservation (which is exactly what they called themselves in the Dedicatory to the A.V. 1611) God has always been the Divine Preserver of His word (Psa. 12:6-7), but He has used men as tools and instruments of preservation, just as He uses men to teach and preach His words. When men humbly yield themselves to the will of God, God can use them to accomplish His will (Rom. 12:1 2), and this is precisely what happened between 1604 and 1611.

FABLE: The King James translators added to the word of God, because the italicized words in the KJV were not in the originals.

FACT: The Italics in the KJV prove that the translators were HONEST in their work. They set the words in italics so we’d know they were not in the manuscripts they were using.
Besides, no one has a copy of the original manuscripts today, so no one knows for certain that the italicized words aren’t in them. In fact, there are many cases where we know that the italicized words are justified. For example, notice in Deuteronomy 8:3 that the word “word” is in Italics. However, when Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 4:4 he INCLUDES the italicized word! If the italicized word does not belong in the Bible, why did the Lord Jesus quote it?

FABLE: The original King James Bible included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.

FACT: The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as scripture.
 
truthnlight said:
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful I work of such pagan Greek “scholars” as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of “the Bible” from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin’s work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the “Egyptian” or “Hesychian” type text) found it’s way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new “Bible” versions in your local “Christian” bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone “correcting” the King James Bible with “older” or “more authoritative” manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHA… that’s funny considering the KJV is a alternative non-catholic translation of the St Jerome Latin Vulgate which rivialed the catholic self-translative work of the Douay Rheims(which was 2 years earlier) Including a translation of the Deuterocanon… It itself is a translation of the bible that was the only bible translation for 1200 years until the protestant reformation.

The Vaticanus is not the official bible of the Catholic Church…
You seem to insinuate that… but it wasn’t. in fact it was written before the Canon was finalised in 382AD. and Which was the first full canon catholic bible? ST JEROME’S 397AD LATIN VULGATE, that was translated into Latin from the original Hebrew manuscripts in Judea(except the book of Psalms, which was translated from the Septuagint) and specifically translated in our lord’s own town of birth, Bethlehem and it was also translated from the original Greek manuscipts of the New Testament.

The official bible of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church does contain Hebrews 10, the book of revelation(although it’s called “the book of Apocalpyse”, just a translative choice of modern catholics actually, we choose not to translate the greek word for “revelation” as it’s very poetic in it’s original form) and always has ever since the original canon was set. It was also the bible that the KJV used as a frame of reference… even though it went for a protestant biased translation of it.

To put it simply, the full Catholic bible Canon was fully first publised in 397AD, and is the Latin Vulgate, no other bible before then is complete.

If the KJV is more “protected” by god more than other protestant bibles, that is the reason why… IT used the Vulgate as a frame of reference for translation. This IS and alwyas has been the official bible of the Latin Rite Catholic Church. The Douay Rhiems is the word for word translation that didn’t come with protestant bias.

Someone might be “using a roman catholic text to over throw the KJV” but that text is BEFORE the final canon was set… THE KJV ITSELF USES THE OFFICIAL BIBLE OF THE LATIN RITE CATHOLIC CHURCH… Any “roman catholic” document before this time, is incomplete and you have every right to denounce them, but don’t say it’s a “roman catholic document” and insinuate it’s a current document and one that is still “roman catholic” because this bible was Superceeded by the first fully COMPLETE CANON bible which is the St Jerome Latin Vulgate, which is STILL the official bible of the Latin Rite and which does contain those books and passages!!! Everyone knows that.
 
colliric said:
HAHAHAHA… that’s funny considering the KJV is a alternative non-catholic translation of the St Jerome Latin Vulgate which rivialed the catholic self-translative work of the Douay Rheims(which was 2 years earlier) Including a translation of the Deuterocanon… It itself is a translation of the bible that was the only bible translation for 1200 years until the protestant reformation.

The Vaticanus is not the official bible of the Catholic Church…
You seem to insinuate that… but it wasn’t. in fact it was written before the Canon was finalised in 382AD. and Which was the first full canon catholic bible? ST JEROME’S 397AD LATIN VULGATE, that was translated into Latin from the original Hebrew manuscripts in Judea(except the book of Psalms, which was translated from the Septuagint) and specifically translated in our lord’s own town of birth, Bethlehem and it was also translated from the original Greek manuscipts of the New Testament.

The official bible of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church does contain Hebrews 10, the book of revelation(although it’s called “the book of Apocalpyse”, just a translative choice of modern catholics actually, we choose not to translate the greek word for “revelation” as it’s very poetic in it’s original form) and always has ever since the original canon was set. It was also the bible that the KJV used as a frame of reference… even though it went for a protestant biased translation of it.

To put it simply, the full Catholic bible Canon was fully first publised in 397AD, and is the Latin Vulgate, no other bible before then is complete.

If the KJV is more “protected” by god more than other protestant bibles, that is the reason why… IT used the Vulgate as a frame of reference for translation. This IS and alwyas has been the official bible of the Latin Rite Catholic Church. The Douay Rhiems is the word for word translation that didn’t come with protestant bias.

Someone might be “using a roman catholic text to over throw the KJV” but that text is BEFORE the final canon was set… THE KJV ITSELF USES THE OFFICIAL BIBLE OF THE LATIN RITE CATHOLIC CHURCH… Any “roman catholic” document before this time, is incomplete and you have every right to denounce them, but don’t say it’s a “roman catholic document” and insinuate it’s a current document and one that is still “roman catholic” because this bible was Superceeded by the first fully COMPLETE CANON bible which is the St Jerome Latin Vulgate, which is STILL the official bible of the Latin Rite and which does contain those books and passages!!! Everyone knows that.
Click to expand...
397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.
 
A Bible Timeline
Where did our Bible come from?

500 BC: Roughly the time of completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up the 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books and the 14 Apocrypha Books.

100 AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up the 27 Books of the New Testament.

390 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test; though the Apocrypha was a cut and paste effort upon pressure by the church, and not by Jerome’s choice (he did not believe the apocryphal books were canonical.).

397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.

500 AD: Scriptures have been translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: Latin was the only language allowed for the translation of the Scriptures.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the first person to produce a hand-written manuscript copy of the complete Bible; All 80 Books; though his translation was from the Latin Vulgate and not from the Greek or Hebrew MSS.

1455 AD: Gutenberg invents the printing press; Books may now be mass-produced instead of individually hand-written. The first book ever printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus produces a Greek/Latin parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s translates the New Testament Scriptures into German.

1525 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament translated from the Greek MSS; This is the first New Testament to be printed in the English language on the printing press. Tyndale did not finish translating the Old Testament.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: Old Testament and New Testament including the Apocryphal books which are non-canonical).

1537 AD: Matthews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a revision (80 Books, as well as a 20% cut and paste from the Geneva Bible).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament of 1582 (Catholic translation) making the first complete English Catholic Bible; It was translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1609 AD: The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books.

1611 AD: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The first English language Bible (a King James Version without Apocrypha) to be Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas respectively produce the first Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns. (This is an excellent reference Bible)

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The most lavishly illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The “Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the King James Bible.

1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the King James Bible.

1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

1973 AD: The “New International Version” (NIV) is published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible. (However its accuracy is very much disputed in many places and is often found wanting as a reliable translation. It is categorized as a dynamic equivalent.)

1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is published as a “Modern English Version maintaining the original style of the King James.”
 
truthnlight said:
A Bible Timeline
Where did our Bible come from?

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the first person to produce a hand-written manuscript copy of the complete Bible; All 80 Books; though his translation was from the Latin Vulgate and not from the Greek or Hebrew MSS.
Click to expand...
Not true. Not only was his translation not the first complete Bible, it was not the first English language Bible.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”).
Click to expand...
[catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp)
 
truthnlight said:
A Bible Timeline
Where did our Bible come from?

500 BC: Roughly the time of completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up the 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books and the 14 Apocrypha Books.

100 AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up the 27 Books of the New Testament.

390 AD: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test; though the Apocrypha was a cut and paste effort upon pressure by the church, and not by Jerome’s choice (he did not believe the apocryphal books were canonical.).

397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.

500 AD: Scriptures have been translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: Latin was the only language allowed for the translation of the Scriptures.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the first person to produce a hand-written manuscript copy of the complete Bible; All 80 Books; though his translation was from the Latin Vulgate and not from the Greek or Hebrew MSS.

1455 AD: Gutenberg invents the printing press; Books may now be mass-produced instead of individually hand-written. The first book ever printed is Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus produces a Greek/Latin parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther’s translates the New Testament Scriptures into German.

1525 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament translated from the Greek MSS; This is the first New Testament to be printed in the English language on the printing press. Tyndale did not finish translating the Old Testament.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: Old Testament and New Testament including the Apocryphal books which are non-canonical).

1537 AD: Matthews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a revision (80 Books, as well as a 20% cut and paste from the Geneva Bible).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament of 1582 (Catholic translation) making the first complete English Catholic Bible; It was translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1609 AD: The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books.

1611 AD: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible; The first English language Bible (a King James Version without Apocrypha) to be Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas respectively produce the first Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken’s Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster’s Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns. (This is an excellent reference Bible)

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The most lavishly illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The “Revised Version” Bible; The First Major English Revision of the King James Bible.

1901 AD: The “American Standard Version”; The First Major American Revision of the King James Bible.

1971 AD: The “New American Standard Bible” (NASB) is Published as a “Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation” of the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

1973 AD: The “New International Version” (NIV) is published as a “Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation” of the Bible. (However its accuracy is very much disputed in many places and is often found wanting as a reliable translation. It is categorized as a dynamic equivalent.)

1982 AD: The “New King James Version” (NKJV) is published as a “Modern English Version maintaining the original style of the King James.”
Click to expand...
Where did you get this from, Jack Chick’s web-site ?
 
TNL,
Do you REALLY believe this?

“About The King James Bible
Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries.”

GEESH, I always thought it was just a joke about KJVO folks saying “if it was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me”. Does God really use the KJV? When did he begin using it? What did he use before KJV? Does his copy have the Apocrypha in it? Did you ask Him? What part of the Vulgate or DR did He disagree with? Were you to read what you write you would be amazed. And you seemed so learned. Please tell me, was it in the Preface, where God states that this is the version He uses? Does “Authorized” mean authorized by God? (It doesn’t, by the way)

Give me a break,
Kevin
 
truthnlight said:
397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.
Click to expand...
hahahahaha… NO…

Baruch and Jeremiah are part of the Deuterocanon. You are incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top