Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The King James Bible controversy


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#1
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts
This will be a closed debate between Oneaccords and Botz on the subject of whether G-d has preserved His Word only through the translation of the 1611 King James Bible.
....the usual rules apply which are:-


1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

#2
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts
First I would like to thank Oneaccords for accepting my invitation to discuss this topic in the Soap-box debate...a medium for expressing opposing views that has been rather neglected of late.

My position is that I love the King James Bible, I once used it exclusively for about 7 years...I like the language, I like the rhythm and poetic pulse that seems to accord it a uniqueness in
the English language, I am not one of those that finds some of the unusual words particularly difficult, rather like anything, they just have to be looked up and learnt...although if you try
and read an original version as I have looked at in an auction recently (I buy and sell paintings, but also books from time to time) it probably won't be easy because not only was it originally
printed in Gothic type face, but all the esses are written as effs...but the feel and the smell of these old leather bound treasures is an experience in itself...even the paper they are printed
on has a unique feel of quality and substance.

Saying that these days I use a number of Bible translations, mostly the NASB, the ESV and the NKJ, but also the KJV...there are a few others I use namely the Orthodox Jewish Bible which
has a wonderful amalgamation of English, Hebrew and Yiddish, David Sterns Jewish Bible...and then Hebrew and Greek copies in an effort to gain as good an understanding about the
full intent of the authors as it is possible to discover. I am not a big fan of the NIV, and never use it...but have been reluctantly forced to defend it on the Boards when accusations have
been levelled against it that I believe are unreasonable...however it is my hope that in these discussions we can leave the NIV out of it, and just work with what has already been mentioned.

I also believe there are many poor and unacceptable Bible versions knocking around, but most people are soon aware how they deviate from the truth...what we are concerned about in this
debate boils down to manuscript sources, why they were used, who agreed on the evidence for their authenticity, who actually did the translation work, what was available at the time and
why was it used, how does one sort out what is corrupt etc etc, and I hope this debate will give readers the opportunity to consider many aspects of the controversy because I do not hold
that the King James Bible is the only proper/pure/uncorrupted version.

There are many other things I could touch upon, but I think they will surface over time as Oneaccords and I thrash out our differences in brotherly love and mutual respect...

Over to him.

Botz

#3
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
Thanks Botz for this opportunity, i have an interest in the Bible Version Issue, i think it is very profitable for all Christians to consider this, i would like to bring up why there is a need for a perfect English Bible.

The Importance of God's Word:

Matthew 24:35 reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Psalms 138:2 says, "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

1 Peter 1:23 says "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..."

Romans 10:17 says the word of God produces faith: "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"

1 Peter 2:2 says it produces spiritual growth: "...desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:"

Psalm 12:6,7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I hope them verses speak for themselves.

For God to preserve His word on Earth forever is to mean that God's Perfect word must be on Earth somewhere. Since English is one of the most common languages you probably would suspect that God would have a perfect Bible in that language.

My problem is that there are over 250 translations all competing for the title of God's Holy word in the English language. As the Holy Spirit is perfect therefore what the Holy Spirit inspires and preserves must be perfect. Sinful men such as Moses, David, Solomon, Peter, Paul and John have been used by God to produce a Bible that is Perfect from beginning to end. Thankfully we can look at the fruits of the Authorized King James Bible in the past 400 years. The KJV produces good fruit [Mat. 7:17-20.] No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. God used the AKJV to go forth unto the ends of the Earth. Great preachers of the Gospel rose. Great revivals have occurred with the AKJV. I would like to compare that with the Modern Bible Versions. eg the NASB is only 52 years old, the NKJV and NIV less than that. The AKJV is the book that has been printed more than any other book in history! If it aint broke why fix it?

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthy process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, the Printing Press was invented in the early 1400's and made possible for a common man to own a copy of the Bible in English. I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. (Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 included all of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" etc. and not even in brackets. The later Douay version of 1950 still included the phrase but in brackets, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 began to omit the Trinity phrase altogether just like the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman versions do. Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism.

I would hope that you see for yourself the difference between the KJV and all other Modern Bibles, then there is only one, inescapable conclusion you can come to - that the King James Bible is the only one among the hundreds of copies, posers, and pretenders, that has stayed true to the words delivered by God, through angels, to men. It's not about what version you like better, or which one your favorite preacher promotes, but it's about which Bible is the one that God recommends and is pure. Why would the Holy Spirit need to produce new Modern Bibles that contradict the AKJV in many places when God has already given us the AKJV? God is not confused. For God is not the author of confusion. We can change the words of God and expect God not to punish us for doing so? What is the motivation to change God's word? Could Satan be behind the attempt to change God's word through perversions that seek to replace the AKJV?

So too in this chapter we read about the book of the LORD. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...(Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this book of the LORD at Isaiah's time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that's not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it the book of the LORD and commands us to read it.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I hope that the readers of this debate will Pray, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

Edited by Oneaccords, 05 April 2012 - 04:03 AM.


#4
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts
'I have no problem recognizing the importance of G-ds word...it is our instruction manual to Holy living and contains amongst many other things stepping stones that reveal the power, authority, character
and nature of the L-rd G-d. It is unique because the words it contains are actually brought to life by the work of the Holy Spirit who Himself testifies of their veracity, enabling us to place our confidence
and trust in what the pages of Scripture contain. Although historically it was written many years ago and penned by over forty recipients, it is an up to date living word thatspeaks directly to a person's
heart, despite no mention of planes, cars, mobile phones and hair-straighteners...the essence of the message it contains is about knowing G-d and loving our fellow man.

I totally agree that the KJB has been instrumental in seeing countless millions of people come into the Kingdom of G-d over the last 400 years, and we can expect it to be used effectively probably until
the L-rd returns... the fruit of those that faithfully laboured over its construction are evident before us, and every Believer would thank G-d for this noble undertaking.

What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses
a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?
From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have
taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually
recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available
and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.

Regarding the maxim concerning the KJB, 'If it ain't broke why fix it?'....

Acts 18:24 ...And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although
more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against
these translations. Also it is no good lumping all translations together, as I have already agreed there are many poor, even perverted versions floating around, and it has been like this ever since
the times of the Apostles.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”


I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the
time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and
weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues
of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly
on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.
In simple terms...we all need each other. Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.

Back to you bro.....

#5
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses
a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?
From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have
taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually
recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available
and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.


Remember though that the Greek NT quoted the Hebrew OT so therefore the NT is a translation from the OT in places. So if this happened it can be reasonable to assume that the KJV is perfect. I dont know how you can say that venerating the KJB can be a work of the flesh. Since the Spirit agrees with the KJB Bible then to me the KJV Supporters are acting spiritually when they agree to holding onto the Authority of Scripture. The KJV Bible has to be perfect because there are no other English Bibles that come close to being a candidate for being perfect. Since God is still God today He has kept His words for us so we aren't in the dark, the verses about inspiration and perservation of God's word speak the truth.

Regarding the maxim concerning the KJB, 'If it ain't broke why fix it?'....

Acts 18:24 ...And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.


Sorry i dont see your point here.

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although
more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against
these translations.


The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.

In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the ESV is not "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?

I Tim. 3:16 KJV -- "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundred of years, millions of Christian have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in their hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven, to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"

Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."

Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.' But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?

Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.

"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"

Also it is no good lumping all translations together, as I have already agreed there are many poor, even perverted versions floating around, and it has been like this ever since the times of the Apostles.


KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”

I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the
time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and
weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues
of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.


I'm saying that the NASB and KJV can agree in places, but then there are many differences, just having these 2 verses does not give us the big picture.

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly
on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.
In simple terms...we all need each other.

Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.


Well i dont see it as KJV Believers wanting to be exclusive, that is not their aim, there aim is the truth and they believe in the KJV Bible as their Sole Authority and tell others of a perfect Bible.

The Spirit does not contradict Himself, nor does the Spirit want the Christian to be confused about Scripture.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yet if the scripture is not really scripture then it wont be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Edited by Oneaccords, 08 April 2012 - 02:30 AM.


#6
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts



What I begin to take issue with, is the assumption that translations from Greek and Hebrew into English, must be perfect in the same manner that the originals were perfect, and that unless one possesses
a translation that is faultless (and thus re-inspired) what one has is virtually valueless/useless, because how can you be sure it doesn't have additions or subtractions and will cause you to sin?
From what I can tell, this is the thinking behind those that venerate the KJB to such an extent that they have to believe it is absolutely perfect, otherwise they cannot reconcile the stance they have
taken with the theology they have developed....what I suggest is that this is a work of the flesh, and is more about the need of a group of people to justify their belief regarding the KJB, than actually
recognising that the word of G-d has indeed been preserved, but in such a manner that it has also been revised and up-dated according to the wealth of fresh manuscript evidence now available
and the widening and deeping of the scholarship of many gifted faithful individuals, who would readily confess to standing on the shoulders of worthy men and women that have gone before them.


Remember though that the Greek NT quoted the Hebrew OT so therefore the NT is a translation from the OT in places. So if this happened it can be reasonable to assume that the KJV is perfect.



I fail to see the connection, and I pointed out some time ago that the quotes from the OT in the NT varied somewhat from the actual Scriptures they were quoted from...just check out any passage
that Jesus quotes, and flick back to the OT reference and you will see the variation...this isn't error, deception or some New-Age conspiracy....but if you approached these differences in the same way
you attack the NASB or ESV you would condemn them for either adding or leaving things out...thus demonstrating a lack of consistency as far as I can see.


I dont know how you can say that venerating the KJB can be a work of the flesh.


What I have found with the KJOnlyers is that they lift the KJV to a position of exclusivity and often despise all other biblical works...in a very real sense they seem to do with the KJB what the Catholics
have done with Mary the mother of Jesus...ascribed things that go beyond what is in evidence....thus it is a work of the flesh, because it is not founded by the Spirit...at least that is how I perceive it.


Since the Spirit agrees with the KJB Bible then to me the KJV Supporters are acting spiritually when they agree to holding onto the Authority of Scripture.


Many have found the Spirit to be equally in agreement through the pages of other versions.

The KJV Bible has to be perfect because there are no other English Bibles that come close to being a candidate for being perfect.



I don't understand this logic, nor how you measure perfection....care to elaborate.

Since God is still God today He has kept His words for us so we aren't in the dark, the verses about inspiration and perservation of God's word speak the truth.


I agree He has kept His words, just not exclusively in the King James format.


No one despises the KJB or thinks it needs fixing...just some fine tuning.


Sorry i dont see your point here.


I'm just saying the KJV is a great translation, but like other good translations it ain't perfect in translation and can be improved.

(will continue later)......

#7
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts



continued......

I don't believe the translators of the NASB or the ESV have knowingly taken liberties with the word of G-d...just like the KJV, these translations are very good, but they have their weaknesses although
more from things like stiltedness and awkward wording and sentence construction...and not from deleting known truths, or inserting unbiblical doctrine...which is really what is being levelled against
these translations.


The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.


The ESV is not based exclusively on the Westcott-Hort Greek text as far as I am aware....there are variations from the TR.
I don't believe you can say it 'omits 5,000 words and 18 sentences etc' in quite the way you are trying to make out....what it does is faithfully follow earlier manuscripts than
the traditional TR, and therefore by nature of its source material it is more concise, and deliberately choses not to include many later variants that are at odds with what they
believe gives a better translation closer to the original.

In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the ESV is not "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?

I Tim. 3:16 KJV -- "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."

For hundred of years, millions of Christian have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in their hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven, to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."


I don't think it is helpful trying to discuss a whole bunch of verses in this way...if you would like to give an example of something you believe underlines what you are attempting to
prove, then I think it will be easier than going all around the houses...but we can cover each one gradually if you so desire...but lets come to some closure on one before moving to
another and maybe things will become clearer.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.


That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately
sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in
His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.


Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"

Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."

Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.


I think you will find this is a rather exaggerated account of what happened...nevertheless it is one mans conviction and without going into the whole story
doesn't really have that much relevance to what we are discussing. I think we both know there are some learned scholars that support the KJO side of things,
but many others who do not.

Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.


I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation
makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility. :noidea:

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!


I don't think that is the premise they work from at all...it goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...
I would just point out that in some ways manuscript evidence that pre-dates by 5-800 years what has been used before....might well be of benefit and be nearer the original
autographs...but I don't think any of these scholars are naive enough to just think 'old = better'...what it does is give them more material to work with in the effort to more closely
understand the fullness of G-ds Word. Not trying to besmirch the KJV or make it obsolete...but to make better something that is already excellent.

In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.'
But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?



Nevertheless they are there for comparison. There is nothing subtle about it...they're not trying to hide anything.

Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.

"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"


Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic? If so then by default this applies to him as well.
Frank Logsdon has his opinions, and I notice he is wheeled out to provide evidence for the KJV...but like I said, he was just one man who has opinions.

KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.


Are they mutually at loggerheads?

to be continued.,.,,

#8
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts

In the NASB we read in Luke 4:4 “man shall not live on bread alone” Now the proper rendering in the AKJV is: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God”


I would like to sugest that you have jumped the gun a bit here my friend...because you are assuming the KJ rendition is the proper one...I would contend that with the manuscripts available at the
time it was probably the only choice, but not necessarily the most authentic or accurate.

Let me expand on this....here in the NASB which I personally favour for accuracy...you are correct that 'but by every word of G-d' has been left off. This was not done on a whim, or to try and
weaken the word of G-d, but because the translators could not justify its inclusion in this instance according to their manuscript evidence...at the same time, fully realising that their colleagues
of nearly 400 years ago used it according to what they had available and thought was correct.

In fact if we look back at the same event as recorded through the book of Matthew, we can see that the NASB even says:

Matt 4:4 '.....Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'

Giving a fuller rendition than either translation in the passage in Luke....so you could say that both the NASB and the KJV were correct even though they are different.


I'm saying that the NASB and KJV can agree in places, but then there are many differences, just having these 2 verses does not give us the big picture.


But you were the one who brought this verse up in an earlier post...I'm just showing you that your objection to the way this has been translated is not wrong just different
and now you are making my point for me. I agree about the 'big picture'...I even mention it below!!...but I don't believe the NASB and the KJV are mutually exclusive overall

I think that when we try to examine evidence, especially concering Scripture, we need to try and get the whole counsel of G-d on a matter...and no single man or group has the monopoly
on His truth...the very nature of its understanding is safe-guarded within the diversity and gifting within the Body, orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit.
In simple terms...we all need each other.

Exclusivity within the Body of Messiah, is not a work of the Spirit.


Well i dont see it as KJV Believers wanting to be exclusive,that is not their aim....



The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.


their aim is the truth and they believe in the KJV Bible as their Sole Authority and tell others of a perfect Bible.


Precisely...but it is their version of what they think is true...I have found the objections against their belief far more substantial and convincing, and I have never really
looked at the arguments in depth until fairly recently.


The Spirit does not contradict Himself, nor does the Spirit want the Christian to be confused about Scripture.

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yet if the scripture is not really scripture then it wont be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness


It is a fact that many aspects within Scripture are not that easy to fully understand, and that studying the Bible is a never-ending lifetimes pre-occupation...
The claim that Scripture is not really Scripture (presumably referring to all modern editions) is part of your belief, not mine....but there are plenty of translations
that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole...these cannot be laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit....they are not acceptable translations because they are more like
works of fiction, humanistic reasoning, myth and supposition, but most of us are fully aware of these sorts of Bibles being marketed.

Back to you....

#9
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.


Well it is fact that the Modern Bible Versions stray from the TR. If you dont have the TR what do you have? Answer: Corrupt Greek Texts – The Nestle Aland Text for the Modern Bible Versions and approved by Rome – You have Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses that agree with the Nestle Aland Text. The NWT is based on it. One recent Nestle Aland Edition had a Jesuit Catholic on the board, the Nestle Aland Text agrees with 5% of the Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus is 95% hence its name the Majority Text.

Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic?


No i dont think you can call him a Catholic because his beliefs were very much against the Roman Catholic Church. From what i have read about him he was hated by the Roman Catholics because of his works.

Frank Logsdon has his opinions, and I notice he is wheeled out to provide evidence for the KJV...but like I said, he was just one man who has opinions.


That one man was on the NASB translation committee and renounced his work on the NASB because he realized that one cant take away or add to the word of God.

but I don't think any of these scholars are naive enough to just think 'old = better'


Yet i have found that is their thinking, and the Modern Bibles are marketed as being better because they are based on older manuscripts than the KJV.

Not trying to besmirch the KJV or make it obsolete...but to make better something that is already excellent.


To tell you the truth i believe that there is a conspiracy in bringing these New Modern Bible Versions in and the people behind it are the Roman Catholic Church and behind that is Satan.
Why would the RCC do it? because they cant stand the KJV which has been so fruitful in the last 400 years. Remember that the RCC fought against an English Bible before the KJV was thought of in 1604! It still goes on today, people aren't being killed for their beliefs it is much more subtle.

Plus to add to that i believe that the NIV is a money making book, published by Zondervan, a worldly publishing company owned by Harper Collins that produce other books that are anti-Biblical.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best! No t goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...


We are in a poorer position now than in 1611 because instead of unity of one Bible, there are 200+ different English Bibles all claiming to be God's word.

I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility


Scholars are not infallible as many believe. What we have today is scholars who agree with Westcott and Hort and the RV without seeing who these men really were and how they changed the KJV.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately
sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in
His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.


Yet the devil in Genesis 3 said “yeah hath God said?” i believe that Satan can work through sinful scholars to pervert, wrest, change, diminish the word of God. And if not that then replace it with something else. You could be amazed at what the motives of some scholars are.

The ESV is not based exclusively on the Westcott-Hort Greek text as far as I am aware....there are variations from the TR. I don't believe you can say it 'omits 5,000 words and 18 sentences etc' in quite the way you are trying to make out....what it does is faithfully follow earlier manuscripts than the traditional TR, and therefore by nature of its source material it is more concise, and deliberately choses not to include many later variants that are at odds with what they believe gives a better translation closer to the original.


it does omit 5000 words and 18 sentences i see that as fact. The translators of it are their own authority, yet they needed to come up with the ESV that comes after RSV and then the NRSV. I guess the RSV, NRSV aren't good enough.

#10
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

but there are plenty of translations that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole


The Message Bible

KJV Believers have two camps. One is the Modern Bible Version Camp and the other is the Authorized King James Bible camp. The former is from Catholic Manuscripts - the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus from Egypt and the latter is the Textus Receptus/Received Text/Majority Text that comes from Antioch Syria. Where the Christians were first called Christians.

Are they mutually at loggerheads?


In every way possible

Edited by Oneaccords, 22 April 2012 - 03:09 AM.


#11
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.


Well it is fact that the Modern Bible Versions stray from the TR. If you dont have the TR what do you have? Answer: Corrupt Greek Texts – The Nestle Aland Text for the Modern Bible Versions and approved by Rome – You have Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses that agree with the Nestle Aland Text. The NWT is based on it. One recent Nestle Aland Edition had a Jesuit Catholic on the board, the Nestle Aland Text agrees with 5% of the Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus is 95% hence its name the Majority Text.

Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic?


No i dont think you can call him a Catholic because his beliefs were very much against the Roman Catholic Church. From what i have read about him he was hated by the Roman Catholics because of his works.

Frank Logsdon has his opinions, and I notice he is wheeled out to provide evidence for the KJV...but like I said, he was just one man who has opinions.


That one man was on the NASB translation committee and renounced his work on the NASB because he realized that one cant take away or add to the word of God.

but I don't think any of these scholars are naive enough to just think 'old = better'


Yet i have found that is their thinking, and the Modern Bibles are marketed as being better because they are based on older manuscripts than the KJV.

Not trying to besmirch the KJV or make it obsolete...but to make better something that is already excellent.


To tell you the truth i believe that there is a conspiracy in bringing these New Modern Bible Versions in and the people behind it are the Roman Catholic Church and behind that is Satan.
Why would the RCC do it? because they cant stand the KJV which has been so fruitful in the last 400 years. Remember that the RCC fought against an English Bible before the KJV was thought of in 1604! It still goes on today, people aren't being killed for their beliefs it is much more subtle.

Plus to add to that i believe that the NIV is a money making book, published by Zondervan, a worldly publishing company owned by Harper Collins that produce other books that are anti-Biblical.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best! No t goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...


We are in a poorer position now than in 1611 because instead of unity of one Bible, there are 200+ different English Bibles all claiming to be God's word.

I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility


Scholars are not infallible as many believe. What we have today is scholars who agree with Westcott and Hort and the RV without seeing who these men really were and how they changed the KJV.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.

That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately
sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in
His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.


Yet the devil in Genesis 3 said “yeah hath God said?” i believe that Satan can work through sinful scholars to pervert, wrest, change, diminish the word of God. And if not that then replace it with something else. You could be amazed at what the motives of some scholars are.

The ESV is not based exclusively on the Westcott-Hort Greek text as far as I am aware....there are variations from the TR. I don't believe you can say it 'omits 5,000 words and 18 sentences etc' in quite the way you are trying to make out....what it does is faithfully follow earlier manuscripts than the traditional TR, and therefore by nature of its source material it is more concise, and deliberately choses not to include many later variants that are at odds with what they believe gives a better translation closer to the original.


it does omit 5000 words and 18 sentences i see that as fact. The translators of it are their own authority, yet they needed to come up with the ESV that comes after RSV and then the NRSV. I guess the RSV, NRSV aren't good enough.

#12
Guest_yod_*

Guest_yod_*
  • Guests
Most modern translations today are taken from Kittel's definitions of the greek.


Gerhardt Kittel was executed for being a nazi war criminal.


Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?????

#13
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Most modern translations today are taken from Kittel's definitions of the greek.

Gerhardt Kittel was executed for being a nazi war criminal.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?????


i dont know how you joined this debate lol i dont mind you coming in and posting though your post might get deleted! :P

So what is the Nazi connection with the NIV (New International Version of the Bible)?

If you look in the introduction and preface of the NIV so called Bible, you will see a reference to Kittel's Theological dictionary.

Kittel's Theological Greek dictionary is a standard of the modernist liberal Bible cemeteries, oops seminaries!

Kittel was a Nazi under Hitler. Kittel was a friend of Hitler and a member of the Nazi party!

To Join the Nazi party you had to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler. (I prefer Jesus thank you)

Kittel was an early member of the Nazi party and was jailed for war crimes at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal after WWII.

Your NIV Pastor uses this Nazi for his Theological dictionary to tell him what Greek words mean in the new testament...

http://www.jesus-is-...IV/niv-nazi.htm


Thanks i did not know about Kittel's Theological Greek dictionary! :blink:

#14
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts

Most modern translations today are taken from Kittel's definitions of the greek.


Gerhardt Kittel was executed for being a nazi war criminal.


Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?????


Hi Yod...this is supposed to be a closed debate between OneAccords and myself, but at this juncture I think you raise an interesting point, and as
OneAccords seems happy enough to entertain your thoughts feel free to join us for the moment, but please nobody else...

From what I understand it was Gerhard Kittels father Rudolf who produced the Biblia Hebraica that some modern translations like the NIV, NASB
and even the NKJB use in their translations...whether he was an anti-Semite or not I can't determine...certainly his work was widely accepted
by Jewish scholars and published through them, and I don't know of anything within the translation that was grossly inaccurate...I think the
main objection was to some of his foot-notes that were mis-leading to some and helpful to others...the bulk of the work is not his really, just
a copy of what has already been published centuries earlier.

I don't know to what extent his son Gerhard Kittels work on NT Greek has influenced some aspects in some modern translations as I don't have any
direct reference...also I don't think his work would be used as a standard work...rather as a possible help in determining correct meanings.
This is not to exonorate him and I would be very interested to see where this leads, and what proof is there of a direct and corrupting influence?

I know it isn't factual that he was executed for being a Nazi war criminal...he was tried, and on an open release awaiting
a re-trial or further trial, when he died in 1948.

#15
Guest_yod_*

Guest_yod_*
  • Guests
Sorry I didn't realize I was butting in....

And I know he wasn't executed, he was protected by friends in high places....sorry...guess I meant "convicted as a war criminal" but my fingers didn't listen to my brain.

Posted Image


OK....I'm out of here. Sorry to interrupt.

#16
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts
continued....



The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best! No t goes far deeper and involves masses of textual comparisons that just weren't possible in the 16th and 17th centuries...


We are in a poorer position now than in 1611 because instead of unity of one Bible, there are 200+ different English Bibles all claiming to be God's word.


The nature of many of the Bibles around today are to help people better understand G-ds word in a more readable format...sometimes to the detriment of word for word accuracy...but then their
purpose has not been to present a Study Bible...but a readable version. We have a far better overall choice available now, and many Believers have a dozen bibles or more, and do not find them
any more confusing that just having one....in fact probably less so.


I honestly don't think 'blind acceptance' can be true....I would have thought the very nature of a scholars work, especially in the tricky field of translation makes 'blind acceptance' an impossibility


Scholars are not infallible as many believe. What we have today is scholars who agree with Westcott and Hort and the RV without seeing who these men really were and how they changed the KJV.


Rather than changing the KJV...try seeing how they have helped and work along-side and in conjunction with the KJV....they are not its enemies...the Gospel is being preached.

Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed. In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's many religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ. We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.


That is just not true.....we have covered this ground before.

You base your accusations against some modern translations on the premise that the people who translate them conspire to pervert the truth of Scripture by deliberately
sticking to inferior and corrupt manuscripts, and that they are in league with devils to remove reference to the fullness of the nature and person of YHVH as revealed in
His Holy Word...this is a faulty premise that you seem to have believed and the basis from which you attempt explanations.


Yet the devil in Genesis 3 said “yeah hath God said?” i believe that Satan can work through sinful scholars to pervert, wrest, change, diminish the word of God. And if not that then replace it with something else. You could be amazed at what the motives of some scholars are.


But to try and put the NASB on the same level as the NWT is really irresponsible, no matter how much you think it varies from the KJV...its just plain wrong.

#17
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts

The very nature of their objections to decent modern bible translations makes them exclusive...they claim to know all others are corrupt because they stray from the TR.


Well it is fact that the Modern Bible Versions stray from the TR. If you dont have the TR what do you have? Answer: Corrupt Greek Texts – The Nestle Aland Text for the Modern Bible Versions and approved by Rome – You have Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses that agree with the Nestle Aland Text. The NWT is based on it. One recent Nestle Aland Edition had a Jesuit Catholic on the board, the Nestle Aland Text agrees with 5% of the Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus is 95% hence its name the Majority Text.


I don't agree with your answer...because most modern translations do not agree 100% with the TR does not mean they are corrupt...you make it sound as if they
treat the TR with no scholarly respect, but that isn't true, they just find some differences that have a better foundation in separate manuscripts that by and large
were not available to the translators of the KJB at the time...if they were I am convinced they would have made good use of them.



Was Erasmus who helped format much of the TR a Roman Catholic?


No i dont think you can call him a Catholic because his beliefs were very much against the Roman Catholic Church. From what i have read about him he was hated by the Roman Catholics because of his works.


Come off it chum....have a look at what he actually believed, he might have been a pain in the rear to Rome because of their conduct, but he still held to extra-biblical doctrines
and considered himself a Roman Catholic till the day he died...to save you the bother of searching the web, let me quote the great man himself.....

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. While he vigorously denounced the corruption and immorality of the monks and priests of his day, he did not object to Roman Catholic doctrine. He objected to Roman conduct, not to Roman theology. He was a lifelong, devoted Catholic. Note his own words (taken from Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus):

From the time when I was a child I have been a devoted worshipper of St. Anne. I composed a hymn to her when I was young, and the hymn I now send to you, another Anne. I send to you, besides, a collection of prayers to the Holy Virgin. They are not spells to charm the moon out of the sky, but they will bring down out of Heaven her who brought forth the Sun of Righteousness. She is easy to approach. (p. 86)

Disowning any connection at all with Luther, Erasmus wrote, "Christ I know; Luther I know not. The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it till the Church departs from Christ" (p. 261). Again, "I have sought to save the dignity of the Roman Pontiff, the honour of Catholic theology, and the welfare of Christendom" (p. 262). And again, But be assured of this, if any movement is in progress injurious to the Christian religion, or dangerous to the public peace or to the supremacy of the Holy See, it does not proceed from Erasmus.... I have not deviated in what I have written one hair's breadth from the Church's teaching. p. 162) I am not so mad as to fly in the face of the Vicar of Christ. (pp. 271-272)

The Holy See needs no support from such a worm as I am, but I shall declare that I mean to stand by it. (p. 270)

The Pope's authority as Christ's Vicar must be upheld. (p. 275)

You may assure yourself that Erasmus has been, and always will be, a faithful subject of the Holy See. (p. 279)

The Lutherans alternately courted me and menaced me. For all this, I did not move a finger's breadth from the teaching of the Roman Church. (p. 340)

... I will bear anything before I forsake the Church. (p. 355)


( This was taken from an article by Doug Kutilek...http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm )


To tell you the truth i believe that there is a conspiracy in bringing these New Modern Bible Versions in and the people behind it are the Roman Catholic Church and behind that is Satan.
Why would the RCC do it? because they cant stand the KJV which has been so fruitful in the last 400 years. Remember that the RCC fought against an English Bible before the KJV was thought of in 1604! It still goes on today, people aren't being killed for their beliefs it is much more subtle.


Not withstanding my comment above, can you see the irony behind your statement here....namely that the very scholar whose translation work has been at the fore-front of the TR
is an absolutely devoted Roman Catholic.....so forgive me if I chuckle a wee bit.

To me your personal belief on this is waaaay out in left field, touches the edge of the Twi-light Zone and is completely unfounded.

The only agreement I can have with you is that there are some poor translations and some bad translations, but to most people they are pretty obvious and you
do some of the better ones an injustice when you lump them together with a few of the rotten apples.

#18
Botz

Botz

    Worthy Servant

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,432 posts
:sad030: ......anyone around?

#19
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. While he vigorously denounced the corruption and immorality of the monks and priests of his day, he did not object to Roman Catholic doctrine. He objected to Roman conduct, not to Roman theology. He was a lifelong, devoted Catholic. Note his own words (taken from Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus):

From the time when I was a child I have been a devoted worshipper of St. Anne. I composed a hymn to her when I was young, and the hymn I now send to you, another Anne. I send to you, besides, a collection of prayers to the Holy Virgin. They are not spells to charm the moon out of the sky, but they will bring down out of Heaven her who brought forth the Sun of Righteousness. She is easy to approach. (p. 86)

Disowning any connection at all with Luther, Erasmus wrote, "Christ I know; Luther I know not. The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it till the Church departs from Christ" (p. 261). Again, "I have sought to save the dignity of the Roman Pontiff, the honour of Catholic theology, and the welfare of Christendom" (p. 262). And again, But be assured of this, if any movement is in progress injurious to the Christian religion, or dangerous to the public peace or to the supremacy of the Holy See, it does not proceed from Erasmus.... I have not deviated in what I have written one hair's breadth from the Church's teaching. p. 162) I am not so mad as to fly in the face of the Vicar of Christ. (pp. 271-272)

The Holy See needs no support from such a worm as I am, but I shall declare that I mean to stand by it. (p. 270)

The Pope's authority as Christ's Vicar must be upheld. (p. 275)

You may assure yourself that Erasmus has been, and always will be, a faithful subject of the Holy See. (p. 279)

The Lutherans alternately courted me and menaced me. For all this, I did not move a finger's breadth from the teaching of the Roman Church. (p. 340)

... I will bear anything before I forsake the Church. (p. 355)


( This was taken from an article by Doug Kutilek...http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm )


http://brandplucked....angekutilek.htm

Mr. Doug Kutilek is a fairly well known critic of the King James Bible. He has his own website filled with many articles he has written discussing his own textual theories and pointing out what he thinks are “great defects” and “serious flaws” in the King James Bible.

Are you a Bible Believer or a Bible Agnostic -

http://brandplucked....veragnostic.htm

I and many thousands of other Bible believers actually believe God meant what He said about preserving and keeping His words in “the book of the LORD” till heaven and earth pass away. We believe God in His sovereignty has in fact given us such a Book and this Bible is the Authorized King James Holy Bible of 1611.

Do we need “the original hand written copy” to believe we have God’s pure words in print today? No. We can easily determine exactly how the SPECIFIC underlying Hebrew and Greek texts read that were accurately translated into this greatest of all Bibles. Those specific words are what God originally inspired and what He has preserved in history and now are found in the English translation known today as the King James Holy Bible.

You, on the other hand, “prefer” the ever changing Critical Text that most modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV are based on, but not even they are your “Final Authority”, are they Mr. Kutilek.

All your modern versions often reject these same Hebrew words in numerous places and can’t even agree among themselves. Want proof? Here it is:

http://brandplucked....ejecthebrew.htm

http://brandplucked....jecthebrew2.htm

And your “critical text” based on what you call “the oldest and best manuscripts” is a pathetic joke that keeps changing its punch line with each new edition to come down the pike every few years.

Bottom line. We King James Bible believers have “the book of the LORD” (Isaiah 34:16), and your Bible Agnostic side does not.

“Kept by the power of God through faith” 1 Peter 1:5

For many more articles from my site defending the King James Bible as the complete, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God and the Standard by which all others are to be measured, go to -

http://brandplucked....om/articles.htm

Will Kinney

#20
Oneaccords

Oneaccords

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

:sad030: ......anyone around?


QUESTION: Was Erasmus, the editor of the Textus Receptus, a "good" Roman Catholic?

ANSWER: Erasmus, who edited the Greek text which was later to be known as the Textus Receptus, was an embarrassment to the pope and a poor example of a "good" Roman Catholic.

EXPLANATION: Desiderius Erasmus was born in 1466 and died in 1536 at the age of seventy. This was no mean feat during the days when the plagues, coupled with primeval medical practices, worked together to limit the average age of a man's life to approximately 35-40 years.
Both of his parents fell victim to that same plague while Erasmus was just a lad. He and his brother were then placed in the care of an uncle who promptly sent them off to a monastery just to be rid of them. Thus Erasmus's destiny was sealed long before he could ever have a say in the matter.
Young Erasmus became well known for his charm, urbanity and wit, and was in possession of an obviously above average intellect. He was later to choose to be an Augustinian on the sole attribute that they were known to have the finest of libraries.
His behavior was somewhat bizarre by Augustinian standards. He refused to keep vigils, never hesitated to eat meat on Fridays, and though ordained, chose never to function as a priest. The Roman Church had captured his body, but quite apparently his mind and heart were still unfettered.
He is known to history as one of the most prolific writers of all times.
Erasmus was a constant and verbal opponent of the many excesses of his church. He berated the papacy, the priesthood and the over indulgences of the monks. He stated that the monks would not touch money, but that they were not so scrupulous concerning wine and women. He constantly attacked clerical concubinage and the cruelty with which the Roman Catholic Church dealt with so called "heretics." He is even credited with saving a man from the Inquisition.
One of his many writings consisted of a tract entitled "Against the Barbarians" which was directed against the overt wickedness of the Roman Catholic Church.
He was a constant critic of Pope Julius and the papal monarchy. He often compared the crusade leading Pope Julius to Julius Caesar. He is quoted as saying, "How truly is Julius playing the part of Julius." He also stated, "This monarchy of the Roman pontiff is the pest of Christendom." He advised the church to "get rid of the Roman See." When a scathing satire, in which Pope Julius was portrayed as going to Hell, written in anonymity was circulated, it was fairly common knowledge that its author was Erasmus.
He was offered a bishopric in hopes that it would silence his criticism. He rejected the bribe flat.
Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament in Greek. They were brought out successively in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. His first two editions did not contain I John 5:7 although the reading had been found in many non-Greek texts dating back as early as 150 A.D. Erasmus desired to include the verse but knew the conflict that would rage if he did so without at least one Greek manuscript for authority. Following the publication of his second edition, which like his first consisted of both the Greek New Testament and his own Latin translation, he said that he would include I John 5:7 in his next edition if just one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. Opponents of the reading today erringly charge that the two manuscripts found had been specially produced just to oblige Erasmus's request, but this charge has never been validated and was not held at the time of Erasmus's work.
The Roman Catholic Church criticized his works for his refusal to use Jerome's Latin translation, a translation that he said was inaccurate. He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas.
He detected that the Greek text had been corrupted as early as the fourth century. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century.
He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find.
Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived, he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man. While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses.
Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby." He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to that declaration.
Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible.
It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched." There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works.
He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink.
Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church.
He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself.
"Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He ... nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood. " He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world."
Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the 16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term "fundamental.")
So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a "good Catholic."
But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

http://www.jesus-is-.../Gipp/ab_57.htm




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network