THE WOMEN OF THE CHURCH

personally, I think the word facetious applies to the responses being given

Essential Meaning of facetious
—used to describe speech that is meant to be funny but that is usually regarded as annoying, silly, or not proper

it's interesting to note that since you cannot refute what is being made available to anyone who actually wants to study or understand why the KJ is not special and certainly not inspired, that you have become flippant and are using out of context verses to try and make a case for your error

it's not working.

here is an interesting anecdotal FACT about the King James

a KJ onlyist will tell you that the 1611 translation is the authorized and inspired version. they call it the preserved word of God

BUT people are actually NOT using the 1611 version which also included the Apocrypha. In 1769 there was issued a REVISION of the 1611 translation and it includes literally THOUSANDS of differences (not spelling mistakes) compared to the original

so all this baloney about the pure word and pure inspired translation of the 1611 KJ translation, is nothing but hooey

many KJ only people do not even know this is so and those that do know, would have to be lying about the 1611

rock and hard place

Adam was not deceived. He knew what he was doing. Something about Adam's sin made him a figure of Jesus Christ. The first Adam compared to the second Adam. I do a whole study on this topic, many others on the board as well. If you'd like I can post it when I get a chance.

Adam's chose to sin, willingly. Adam's sin made him a figure of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for sharing your opinions...

You should probably study the topic and know what you're talking about before posting off another website's opinions against the KJV...probably James White.

It was never part of the text. You know that full well. It was an insert in the middle and later removed.

From a brother:

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), the Zurich Bible 1530, the French Olivetan 1535, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. The Reformation bibles included the books known as the Apocrypha. In 1666 they began to print King James Bibles without the Apocryphal books, and eventually they stopped including them altogether.

The Geneva Bible also had several Apocryphal references in it's footnotes, "In the 1560 edition, the Geneva listed Psalm 22 and Wisdom 2:18 as a cross reference for Matthew 27:43. The Geneva Bible cross references James 3:2 with the book of Sirach 14:1, 19:16, and 25:11. It cross references Hebrews 1:3 with Wisdom 7:26.

If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, (you can get a reprint from Thomas Nelson Publishers for about 20 dollars), the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout.

It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." All King James Bible contained the Apocrypha in the inter-testamental section until 1666. Then it began to be omitted in subsequent printings.

I do not know that full well, Mr. Liar.

What I do know is it is part of the KJV which you claim is pure.

Adding close to the amount of the NT is quite the contamination.

I think I know what you mean, but the way you phrased it is heretical.

More slander.

Check your references and fix your attitude. You're disgraceful.

It did not make him a representation of Christ. The meaning of the text is to show the difference from the 1st man who gave us mortal death and the last man who gives us eternal life.

I apologize. I thought you knew the Apocrypha was an insert and not part of the text itself and labeled as so. Sorry about that. I take things for granted sometimes.

Let me ask you a question...

If you were reading through the KJV honestly, with no prior knowledge of scripture at all, would there be anything you come across that would make you say, that's an error? Contradiction?

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

No offense, I have absolutely no interest in your study or notes. I was asking for the scripture references. I was not asking for your interpretation.

As I explained already

We know that Adam was not deceived but Eve. Adam knew what he was doing. So why did Adam eat? Because God said it’s not good for man to be alone. They had become help mates, married and joined as one by the flesh.

The Bible also says that’s there is something different about Adam’s transgression that made him a type of Christ.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

How was the first Adam’s sin similar to the second Adam, Jesus Christ? Both gave up a lot to be with his bride out of love.

In short...
Adam sinned to be with his bride. Jesus became sin for us.
Adam would leave his perfect home to live in a cursed, dark world to be with his bride. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Adam gave up his authority to be with his bride. Jesus gave up his authority to be with His bride.
Adam gave up his relationship with the Father when he sinned. Jesus gave up His relationship with the Father when He became sin.
Adam would suffer death to be with his bride. Jesus would die as well to be with His bride.

We have been born in the image of Adam. We shall bear the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15).

The only difference is what the first Adam could not do in rescuing his bride, the second Adam accomplished.

did it help?