The King James Bible controversy

[Oneaccords]

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.

[Guest yod]

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?????

[Oneaccords]

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!

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-savior.com/Bible/NIV/niv-nazi.htm

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

[Botz]

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.

[Guest yod]

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.

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

[Botz]

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.

[Botz]

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.

[Botz]

......anyone around?

[Oneaccords]

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.webs.com/emailexchangekutilek.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.webs.com/biblebelieveragnostic.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.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.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.webs.com/articles.htm

Will Kinney

[Oneaccords]

......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-savior.com/Bible/Gipp/ab_57.htm