Saturday, April 5, 2014

KJV 1611 and its Popishness

I have recently run into a community of Seventh Day Adventists that are very anti-Catholic and very pro-KJV, insisting that the other Bibles are riddled with the fleas of Popery. Let's check out some of the Popish Romanism the KJV 1611 is logged full of.

In the KJV 1611 Kalendar under February

Popish Holyday the "Purification of Mary" aka Candlemas is on February 2!

Popish feast day of St Valentine is listed under its present date February 14!

Prayers listed under February 2 includes Wisd. 9 and Wisd 12 (a Catholic book omitted in modern edition of the KJV 1611)

Prayers listed under February 24 includes Wisd xix (the last chapter of this papist book!)

Next Page--March

This page exposes even grander examples of the KJV's popery!

The Popish feast day of St Edward the Martyr--A Romish English, Saint, King and Martyr is listed under March 18 the traditional papist date

The Romish feast day of the Annunciation of Mary is listed under March 25--9 months before the holyday Christmas.

The Popish feast of the founder of Western monasticism St Benedict of Nursia is celebrated on March 21, as some do.

Even worse, in its most blatant, unashamed example of Popery yet it lists a Romish Pope on its Kalendar!

Pope Gregorie aka Gregory the Great (reigned AD 590-604) is listed under its present day of March 12!

Conclusion: This and many more show the Catholic influence in the King James Version 1611 Bible. A good seventh day Adventist or good Baptist should either reject this so called translation for its obvious influence by Popery or become a miserable papist himself! As it must be asked if Adventists and Baptists insist the KJV 1611 is perfect because of its pure manuscripts from Textus receptus of the Antioch Line, then why is it no Baptist or Adventist makes a modern-updated version of the text into modern English, rather than spend all the time on the older English of the KJV--since after all the NKJV is corrupt? Could it be no Baptist or Adventist is qualified to do such a thing, or that they cannot trust their own people?!

1 comment:

  1. As always, interesting post and good research!