PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-aug2025_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #b8a999 (color 2)
Video Format : 136 (720p) mp4 | h264 | 44100Hz | 1098654 bps
Audio Format: 140 (AUDIO_QUALITY_MEDIUM) m4a | aac | 44100hz | STEREO(2channels)
PokeEncryptID: 47c4833f7e0d6763e6fcc7f464aedfc501f848234f9c75462e49d94bfb50fc2dd19d23711f4dfd5f548d9b99c0933ec7
Proxy/Companion URL : woke-proxy.
Date : 1759701436304 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text?? : cUxfQzdzd2NJVDggaSAgbG92ICB1IHdva2UtcHJveHkucG9rZXR1YmUuZnVu
143 : true
835 Views โข 2 months ago โข Click to toggle off description
Views : 835
Genre: People & Blogs
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At 2 months ago ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 5 (0/27 LTDR)
100.00% of the users lieked the video!!
0.00% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 100.00- Masterpiece Video
RYD date created : 2025-07-20T16:43:20.161413Z
See in json
44 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Yet we still don't have an Apocrypha for the MEV. When I had spoken to Jim, he had responded positively to my suggestion that the MEV should have an Apocrypha so that it could be useful to Catholic/Orthodox readers (possibly one adapted from the WEB Apocrypha to speed up the process), but as far as I know, the needle never moved beyond that. I don't see the publisher doing anything about it, since they currently seem interested in selling their translation only to Charismatics/Pentecostals.
2 | 1
Enoch was 100% recognized as scripture to Jude who quoted directly from it.
3 | 7
To the Ethiopian Church, Enoch is indeed scripture, and included in the canon. To some this COULD mean the Holy Spirit erred. A related question is why are the canon(s) of scripture different between the main churches (Catholic, Orthodox(es), Protestant, Ethiopian, etc.
2 | 2
Paul quoted from pagan poets who wrote poems (technically scripture) that doesn't mean it is inspired.
1 | 1
I hold to the 66 books as canon. But the apocrypha is edifying. We get a glimpse into the minds of people from the time of Jesus. We are blessed to have it all.
4 | 0
"that if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9 (WEB)
1 | 0
Well, I suspect you will either love the MEV or you will hate the MEV after watching this video on Monday!๐ฎ
1 | 0
Council of Rome 382 canonized 73 Books. The North African councils of Hippo 393, Carthage 397, 6th Carthage 419 all affirmed 73 Books. Pope Innocent 1 in 405 AD also affirmed the North African list of 73 Books. End of argument.
| 3
Is Carlos going to make sure we get an MEV with the apocrypha and Enoch?
| 1
Equally inspired?????
1 | 1
Modern bible use 2 main Greek text
Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus
And both contain some of Apocrypha .
| 1
The King James Bible translators did NOT consider the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture. They came right out and said it.
The Apocryphal Booksโจ
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
Please note in the photo that (1) they (the KJV translators) placed the Apocrypha after Malachi and before Matthew, not blending it in with the the other books, (2) they called its whole section "Apocrypha," not listing "Esdras" at the top of the page, as they did with Malachi on the opposite page, and (3) after Malachi ends we see the note "The end of the prophets," a clear indication that the Apocrypha is something very different than the inspired prophets.
King James himself said, "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist " - King James, 1599, Basilicon Doron, page 13... The 39 Articles say, "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine".
| 1
Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
Please note in the photo that (1) they (the KJV translators) placed the Apocrypha after Malachi and before Matthew, not blending it in with the the other books, (2) they called its whole section "Apocrypha," not listing "Esdras" at the top of the page, as they did with Malachi on the opposite page, and (3) after Malachi ends we see the note "The end of the prophets," a clear indication that the Apocrypha is something very different than the inspired prophets.
King James himself said, "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist " - King James, 1599, Basilicon Doron, page 13... The 39 Articles say, "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine".
| 1
๐ฟ
| 0
Wow. Has this guy never read what the KJV translators said? George Abbot, "Heere is a most manifest distinction between the Canonical and the Apocryphall, and a signification that these inferior volumes were only read, to such as were novices in the faith, but they were not accounted authentical & unquestionable." Arthur Lake, "we hold that which they confesse, that the Word written in the Canonicall books is undoubtedly signed with Thus saith the Lord of Hostes; as for the Apocryphall Scirptures, not only the Fathers, but their owne men have branded them for Bastards, before ever we challenged them; therefore doe not wee recommend them to people further than they agree with the Bookes Canonicall." Thomas Sanderson "your popish Scripture as being none of my word, but the word of the devil, so false and adulterated, so poisoned, and full of corruptions"
Sure "Scripture" can mean writings, but to put the Apocrypha on the level of the God-breathed writings is wrong and especially to try to force that on the KJV. Just look at the discussions at the Synod of Dordt.
| 1
@timwildsmith
2 months ago
Let me go get my popcorn.
13 | 2