Validity of Scripture, the Apocrypha versus the King James

[Carry_Your_Name]

All Baptist and Calvanist Churches have gone wayward? Their interpretations don't matter because they are all apostate?
You are, first and foremost, painting with a broad brush, and secondly begging the question. I mean, I am a sold out Christian and totally agree with you concerning the moral questions, but the various Churches like the Episcopals and so forth who have even recently split over homosexuality, point to "alternative" interpretations of Scripture

No, you're painting with a broad brush by assuming "all". "He who has an ear, let him hear." Within one denomination there's such split as you mentioned, those who stand for biblical principles have an ear to hear.

They will say that it is your own interpretation that is blinding you to God's Love and that because of that you lack His Compassion for the LGBTQ. I don't agree with that, but that is not the point. The point is that it is DOCTRINE which defines the Holy Church.

They condone or support LGBTQ by such "doctrine" of "God's love". Even though the bible plainly states that man lying with man is unnatural, and just because there's "neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, free nor bound, for all are one in Christ," doesn't mean it can be extrapolated to "neither gay nor straight". But unfortunately they did extrapolate, and they equate that with the civil right movement. They've either ignored Rom. 1:26-27 and Lev. 18:22 or come up with their own twisted interpretation, and they practice what they preach, that's exactly the point.

The Churches you point to often are much more generous with charitable works than Churches which are Doctrinally correct.
Like I said, you are question begging. Furthermore, you are failing to realize that it is the diligence of the ancient Church up until now which has PRESERVED the true Apostolic Dogmatic Doctrines which DEFINE what Christianity actually is and what the teachings of the Lord actually were.
Again, you have failed to answer who has the final word on Scriptural interpretation for the whole Church.

What defines a church is not its doctrines, but its WORKS, says not I but the bible, repeatedly. You're the one who's failing to acknowledge that. I don't answer a loaded question with a false premise that a church is defined by its doctrines, whereas in the bible a church is known by its works (Rev. 2:2, 2:9, 2:13, 2:19, 3:1, 3:8, 3:15), each individual Christian is also judged by their work (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

 

[RedPill]

Do you know how the modern Hebrew Old Testament came about? Itbis called the Masoretic Text because of the post Christian Jewish scholars who reinvented ancient Hebrew and translated a certain Greek Text of the Old Testament which was a translation of the actual ancient Hebrew language.
Do you know where that Greek translation came from?

Dyonisius the Areopagite is where the quote above came from in post # 15 .

Firstly, there are absolutely no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament. Quotations by Jesus and Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint. These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians, Jerome, Hort, and our contemporary D.A. Carson, would agree that this is true. Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and Paul! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because both originated from a manuscript penned by the same hand - a hand which recast both Old and New Testament to suit his Platonic and Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts - which came from Origen’s Hexapla - and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Alfred Martin, who was a past vice-president of Moody Bible Institute, called Origen “unsafe.” Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Hebrew Old Testament.

The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (also called the LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on fables. All of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla, in kind. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics elaborates, calling “the letter of the pseudo-Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect.” It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and Platonic readings.

Secondly, the fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit letter of pseudo-Aristeas. It said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint ‘committee.’ The fable further pretends that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-two. The Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:

1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).

2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. “But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.”

3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)

4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.