Gnosticism?

He drew up The Rules of Translating.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transrul.htm

Sin is sin in any “day”, whether the day that Cain slew Abel, King David slew Uriah or King James slew believers.

Not really and not only, the manuscript discoveries of archeologists post 1611 were equally responsible for this phenomena.

The King James Bible is not without entanglements with personalities involved in “secret societies”.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
He drew up The Rules of Translating.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes. So. There is nothing wrong in those rules. King James had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the methods of translation, nor the translating process. He didn't even touch the manuscripts. You are sadly bringing up, and focusing upon IRRELEVANT things to COMPROMISE with mv's errors, when you should be WARNING others of them.
You are sadly fighting the wrong side and as a result against the truth, and compromise with error.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Sin is sin in any “day”, whether the day that Cain slew Abel, King David slew Uriah or King James slew believers.

--------------------------------------------------

As this may be true, It is not likely God would use heretical satan worshipping men to translate His word of truth. God's words are preserved by Him through believers, not heretics.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Not really and not only, the manuscript discoveries of archeologists post 1611 were equally responsible for this phenomena.

--------------------------------------------------

And you are incorrect. Textual criticism that is used today for the mv's is quite different than what was used in the history of the RT.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Everything you use to condemn the totality of W&H's "fruit" can be rightly turned around on Erasmus and the KJV translators.

Do you really think your assumptions of them being guilty of "apostacy" and "german rationalism" rise to the level of suppressing the gospel by imprisoning Baptist preachers?

Do you think Erasmus was sound in his doctrine? How about the KJV translators? I have shown you the 39 Articles of Religion that clearly show that they believed that baptism is linked to salvation.

You persistently state conclusions and cite "the evidence" but you seldom if ever state the specific evidence you are referring to, much less build your case rationally around it.

W&H's proposed methods for dealing with textual criticism were reasonable. You have not proven that they compromise nor contradict scriptural principles.

Just because you say so isn't a reason... its an opinion. And at this point, it is a completely unqualified opinion.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The King James Bible is not without entanglements with personalities involved in “secret societies”.

--------------------------------------------------

Prove it. You will not find any KJB translators involved with such a thing. And even if you did, it most certainly would not have been all of them, influencing the texts, as W/H (both of whom were steeped into it) could and did. If you can prove all of them did, then I stand corrected. If you show me only one or two, it means absolutely nothing, as there were 47 translators involved, and each group overlooked the work of the others. It was not done in secret, nor was it secluded to only two men.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

There is more evidence that W&H were genuine believers than there is for Erasmus.

BTW, you haven't proven that these men were heretical or satan worshippers. You assume that it is true because you think it helps your case.

That is not honest, fair, nor Christlike Michelle. You don't "know" anything about these men other than what others have written about them... and the best documented opinions disprove what you assert here.

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the translators handed over the reviser’s manuscripts of what is now called the King James Bible to King James for his final personal approval.‘It was self-evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts on to the greatest genius of all time ...Sir Francis Bacon.’
Found online in the public domain at
--------------------------------------------------

Okay Hank. Please show me he translated or changed the texts? Do you have proof that he did? Did he touch the manuscripts, or have any say whatsover in their methods of translation? Or did he only do what it says he did "handed over the manuscripts of the revisors for approval" to edit it?

Quite a BIG DIFFERENCE.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There is more evidence that W&H were genuine believers than there is for Erasmus.
--------------------------------------------------

Quite the contrary. There is more evidence that Erasmus was a saved man, and Westcott and Hort were occultists.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
That is not honest, fair, nor Christlike Michelle. You don't "know" anything about these men other than what others have written about them... and the best documented opinions disprove what you assert here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I go by our Lord's words, that by their fruit you shall know them. Their fruits were corrupt by examining their life, involvements, and associations. Can two walk together unless they be agreed? Please check out the links I provided on the thread I started entitled "Westcott and Hort" and then tell me that what I say is unfounded. What you are saying is unfounded, and not based upon FACTS but your own biased opinion and compromising and stubborn spirit.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

How is that related to the greek word bologna, must be pretty close, same family at least

 

How strictly do you apply this rule? Why are you selective in applying it? If we examined your fruit under a microscope and were willing to distort and exaggerate any flaw we found in you, would that be rightly applying the principle above?

So were those of Erasmus and the KJV translators.

I didn't say you didn't have a source. I said that you are applying a standard that the people responsible for the KJV cannot stand up under.

What I am saying is a matter of factual history.

I have no bias nor am I compromising on the truth. I believe that the KJV translators, though not inspired and therefore not the producers of a "perfect" work, were outstanding classical scholars who produced a most excellent version of the Bible. But I cannot deny who they were (by admission and historical record) nor what they believed.

Love for the truth demands that we be fair and apply the same standard to one as we do the other.

Finally, you have no basis to accuse me of having a stubborn spirit. I have read the charges against W&H. I have read the rebuttals of those charges. The rebuttals are much better documented and supported. However, I have no means of knowing whether W&H were engaged in shadowy activities. However if they did, they appear to have spent the bulk of their time in writings that contradict such things... A carefully crafted, laborious cover up? Maybe, but I doubt it.

I have no need nor desire to present a comprehensive defense of the characters of W&H. The question is whether the methods began by them are reasonable and biblically consistent or not. They are- Whether correct or incorrect, they are logical and honest.

 

The only evidence ever presented as "proof" of Erasmus conversion is that he supposedly died with the Protestants. His life of writing, especially his debates with Luther over the nature of salvation, undermine the notion that he was anything less than RCC. Luther argued "by grace alone". Erasmus argued for a works based sotierology.

Even if it were true that he converted in the two years before his death, Erasmus still would have been a lost RC at the time he created the TR.

Again, I have seen the support for these charges of occultism. The rebuttals are more credible from a factual basis.

 

michelle said:

You might want to set your focus of gnosticism upon those men who had part in the underlying texts of the mv's, rather than some man who has no influence on versions translations at all.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

English is ofcourse the worst language to debate mysticism and gnosticism in. Dutch has more words to seperate the different notions.
For the purpose of this list I will not pontificate on the question of what the Divine truly is, God, a form of selfdeception, the devil, or all of above.

mystiek = The direct experience of the Divine.

gnosis = the insight that comes from having an experience that one would classify as mystiek.

gnosticisme = the nonsense you get if you try to describe gnosis.

gnostiek = The religious movement that competed with Christianity in the early centuries A.D. It's claim to fame was having gnosis, it is more correct to say it had gnosticism.

mysticus, plural mystici= a person who directly experiences the Divine

mysticisme = the peculiar traditions that spring up if techniques that are used by mystici get adopted by normal people.
Examples are nativity scenes and praying the rosary.

 

“The Rules of Translating” DUH!
Apparently you didn’t even read the rules each and every one of which have to do with both the method and process of translating. Simply denying the obvious makes you your own worst enemy.

Strange, King James called Baptists the same thing and then passed the death sentence upon them.

The rules are the same, the sources are different.

To which you responded

I did, you ignored the documentation.

As usual as has been shown so many times, michelle
1) redefines the terms of engagement to suit her side of the debate, and/or
2) denies the obvious and/or
3) will not allow her own yardstick of condemnation to be used against her in rebuttal.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
How strictly do you apply this rule? Why are you selective in applying it? If we examined your fruit under a microscope and were willing to distort and exaggerate any flaw we found in you, would that be rightly applying the principle above?

--------------------------------------------------

We are commanded to do this, so it wouldn't bother me in the least. You will not find that I am involved in any secret society, nor will you find that I associate with any such people. My life may not be perfect, but as a born again child of God, He leads me in the right path, and that path is not that of secret societies, nor associating with those who are unbelievers, or walking disorderly.

I also, am not a translator of His Holy words either, nor am I called to be a preacher.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

That is all you have done here at the BB.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
So were those of Erasmus and the KJV translators.
--------------------------------------------------

Please prove to me that these men were heretics and involved in such heretical things? Erasmus associated with Protestants. The KJB translators were God fearing and honouring men. Please show me there involvements in such occultic societies. You need to show that all 47 men were involved, and you need to show me Erasmus was also. If Erasmus was catholic, why then did his own Catholic church consider him a heretic? Even until this very day? You are believing the rumors and speculations of men, rather than fact and history.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I didn't say you didn't have a source. I said that you are applying a standard that the people responsible for the KJV cannot stand up under.
--------------------------------------------------

Prove it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle