Is the KJV of God or man?

I see several others have already answered your post, but since it was in reply to MY post, I shall now proceed to dissect it:

 

Originally posted by Askjo::
Originally posted by robycop3:
It can be applied to KJVOs same as any other group. Dr. Ruckman and others like him are fairly recent additions to the KJVO mix. And along comes Gail Riplinger to write a book full of hooey and DELIBERATE MISQUOTES.

I am not fan of Ruckman and Riplinger.

Good!

And the passage says, MEN, not BVs. These men produced their corrupted Bibles.[/b]
Where's your PROOF that they're corrupt? All we've had is GUESSWORK AND OPINION! Not ONE BLIP OF EVIDENCE!!

I am a faithful Christian. Would you like to "confront" me concerning Bible version issues, in a Christ-honoring manner? I stand ready to answer any and all questions.
I will confront you concerning manuscript evidences that you rejected. I can see you still defend Catholic secrets.

What Catholic secrets?? The Textus Receptus was made by a man, Erasmus Desiderius, who was DEFINITELY A RC!! So, if you're gonna automatically reject anything made or handled by a RC, you'd better start w/the TR.

How do you KNOW he was reading a corrupt BV?

Can't I see many people holding their corrupted Bibles?

"Wisdom" is justified by her children.

WHICH manuscripts? I posted them many times. Can't you find?

Yep! Read my comment at the end of this post to see what I think of all this.

Can you PROVE some mv has OMITTED any words?
Sure! You can see the names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament only here:

NIV - 173 times!

NASB - 210 TIMES!

NEB - 190 times!

All I see is more Onlyist circular reasoning, which says, in so many words,"THOSE mss do not agree with THESE mss, which I've decided are right, to the exclusion of any others, because they're found in the TR and were used for the KJV.Therefore, they're CORRUPT. Any mss but the ones I've decided are correct, are corrupt. My choices HAVE to be right because the KJV was made from them!!"

Scholars have been arguing for over a hundred years about which mss are authentic and which are corrupt, and there's still no settlement in sight-that is, till the KJVOs came along, and, ignoring all the scholarship, arbitrarily decided for themselves which were correct & which were corrupt, after reading a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST'S book! Never mind they had no EVIDENCE to back up their claims.

All together, now, sports fans-1-2-3-BAH!HUMBUG! Baptists aren't as gullible as you may think.

 

Originally posted by Askjo:
[Originally posted by Scott J:
MV's don't come from a RCC text.
You see, it is your denial and lies. However the evidence that you can't deny/lie is that Westcott and Hort were closet Catholics who produced their "new" modern version, the ERV. They devoted themselves to the Catholic.

The maker of the TR, Erasmus Desiderius, was OPENLY Catholic. You cannot truthfully deny it.So, if you're gonna reject any work because a RC did it, better start with the TR.

You see, one of 3 editors of the UBS is Catholic.

Then he has the MINORITY opinion.

Vaticanus Manuscript came from Rome - the home of Roman Catholic Church. W/H loved this text. That's why they produced their corrupted bible, ERV.

BUT-Did the RCs WRITE Vaticanus? And why, if it's a RC ms, did the Vatican keep it HIDDEN for so long?

No excuse!

For believing Onlyism, that is.

 

Life and Letters of Hort
Life and Letters of Westcott

You go ahead to get these books.

 

Erasmus was RC, but he did not function it because he only used the "PEN" and wrote 5 Greek texts. That's why he was RC. When Erasmus died, he was in the reformation's hands, not RC's hands.

 

Askjo said:

I learned that this faithful Christian who read his corrupted Bible

How dare you call the Word of God "corrupted"? What a sick and twisted display of worldly unbelief. Shameful!

 

Askjo said, allegedly to support the contention that Westcott and Hort were Romanists:

Life and Letters of Hort
Life and Letters of Westcott

I have read these books.

You, sir, are a liar.

 

Life and Letters of Hort
Life and Letters of Westcott

You go ahead to get these books.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK, step one complete. I have Life and Letters of Westcott, both volumes, sitting right beside me. Provide a quote and page number, and let's move on to step 2.

 

It's very obvious that you deny 2 Cor. 2:17.

Me - liar? Ok, let's see, who is a liar? You or me? Let 2 books speak here:

Westcott wrote: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." See Life of Wescott, Vol 2 page 50.

Hort wrote: "But you know I am a staunch sacredotalist ." See Life of Hort, Vol. 2 page 86.

How could you call me a "liar" reflecting to W/H's quotations from their books concerning Catholics?

Then you are a liar, right? No excuse!

 

A-A, Your whole response was nothing but evasion. Does it not trouble you that you keep being asked questions for which you have no factual response? If KJVOnlyism were biblically true wouldn't you be able disprove charges against it rather than trying to deflect or change the subject? If not, then you are seriously hardened to the truth.

Yeah,yeah,I know Everybody on this board "loves" and "uses" the KJB;but at the same time,claim to find fault in it;what is that?? tough love?? I call it sickening!</font>[/QUOTE] You can call it anything you want... as long as one of those things is "TRUTHFUL". The KJV is not a perfect text. It was not inspired directly by God. It was created by fallible Church of England scholars.

BTW, how many things in this world do you love or use that have flaws?

Those verses came from the Old Latin;you know this,you have been shown the proof,you continue to throw that tripe out in attempt to make someone believe it;</font>[/QUOTE] That's not where Erasmus got it. He got it from his very late version of the Latin Vulgate. And more to the point, you constantly argue that MV's come from a few corrupt mss and are therefore wrong. Yet here, you argue that even though a reading in the TR and thus the KJV comes from a corrupted text against the totality of Greek mss... it is none the less correct.

Once again, you are carrying divers weights and employing a dishonet double standard.

That is the only way KJVOnlyism survives... lengthy, meaningless "proofs" that prove nothing and are built on false premises.

That is A LIE!!! Rome's fingerprints are all over MVs,via Vaticanus(Rev 17).Denying this will not make it go away.... </font>[/QUOTE] That is not a lie.

Erasmus was a RC. Avoiding this will not make it go away. If Vaticanus is automatically corrupt for having been held captive by Rome for centuries then most certainly anything produced by Erasmus who willfully remained RC against the efforts of the protestants to convert him is exceedingly corrupt.

BTW, doesn't make sense that Rome would withhold Vaticanus since it would conflict with the Latin Vulgate and thus undermine its authority? Worse yet for you, would the Pope allow Erasmus to publish the TR if it raised questions about the Latin Vulgate? (In case you are confused or would like to further evade the obvious, the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.)

Who's works and Bibles translated thereof are BANNED by the RCC,as per the council of Trent,and are still banned even until this day;</font>[/QUOTE] That was long after Protestants capitalized on Erasmus works to cause problems for Roman authority.

And like I said, they aren't lies. Regardless of what the RCC decided later, Erasmus needed papal approval to go forward with his work. If you evade the truth and attempt to create a diversion by calling me a liar (without proof), what does that say about you?

Only in your twisted little world..</font>[/QUOTE]Huh? I never said that anything the RCC uses or believes is automatically corrupt. That was you. I believe that things associated with the RCC are to be evaluated the way anything else is, by the light of God's Word. For instance, the virgin birth or Trinity.

Thats No 4...Have you no shame??!! </font>[/QUOTE] Shame about opposing and exposing the lie of KJVOnlyism... none whatsoever!

Only the parts that agree with the KJB...</font>[/QUOTE] Why do you make the translation choices of Anglican scholars more authoritative than the words of the mss that God providentially preserved or for that matter inspired in the originals?

You know,I was always told that if a person sees a pack of dogs,and if said person picks up a rock and throws it into the pack,the one that gets hit will cry out.Well....point proven... </font>[/QUOTE]As cute as I am sure you think that response was, it was nothing but evasion. Whoever wrote that garbage did so in a very un-Christlike spirit. It is a lie and anyone who believes or uses it willfully is participating in the lie.

 

I have tried to independently confirm or negate your claim. I am aware of how freely KJVO's "interpret" facts so please cite a document that proves the RCC "banned" Erasmus' Greek texts. I know they hated his published criticism of their practices but have been unable to find any evidence that they discussed his Greek text at all.

 

Erasmus was RC, but he did not function it because he only used the "PEN" and wrote 5 Greek texts. That's why he was RC. When Erasmus died, he was in the reformation's hands, not RC's hands.

Then, why did he need the Pope's permission to have Frobisher publich his work?

And for that matter, which edition of the TR is the "official" one? Erasmus revised it 3 times, not to mention Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir Bros. And also there's the little fact that if the KJV, TR, & the underlying mss were all translated into a common language, no two of them would match.

 

Askjo said:

It's very obvious that you deny 2 Cor. 2:17.

Not at all, sir. It is very obvious, on the other hand, that you have absolutely no qualms against slandering fellow believers. I pray that God grants you repentance from this wickedness.

Westcott wrote: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." See Life of Wescott, Vol 2 page 50.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I don't think you could have chosen a better example to prove that either you really have no clue what you are talking about, or you are playing me for the fool.

First, the word Mariolatry comes from Mary + idolatry. It is a very derogatory term for Marian devotion. If Westcott were a devotee of the Virgin, do you actually think he would describe himself with such a word?

Second, Westcott does not say he himself is a devotee of Mary. He is saying that beliefs do not appear out of thin air, and thus Mariolatry must have a reason for being. I believe that it is in this passage that Westcott delves into some psychological speculation, that in Catholic culture Jesus is viewed as remote and distant, whereas it is Mary who is viewed as near to the hearts of believers. (Brian, can you double-check this for me?) Certainly that speculation meshes well with what some of my ex-Catholic friends have told me.

Hort wrote: "But you know I am a staunch sacredotalist ." See Life of Hort, Vol. 2 page 86.

"Sacerdotalism" does not imply "Catholicism." What you have proven, at most, is that he was a high-church Anglican. (But so was his chief opponent in the textual debate, John Burgon.)

How could you call me a "liar" reflecting to W/H's quotations from their books concerning Catholics?

Those quotations do not say what you say they do. In fact, one of them says the exact opposite. Hence, the truth is not in you. QED.

 

Which church has the Mariolatry? Baptist? or Catholic?

Hort was Anglican and closet Catholic because he wrote to Westcott about the Mariolatry. That's obvious that W/H were Catholics.

 

Hi Askjo,

Ransom's answers are sufficient - no Catholic nor supporter of Catholicism would use the term "Mariolatry" to refer to the devotion of Mary. It is a term used by those opposed to Catholicism, those who believe Catholics have confused "Mary-" and "-idolatry". No Catholic or "closet Catholic" would agree that Catholics are committing idolatry of Mary.

First, it appears to me that this is a cut-and-paste from somewhere else, and you have not actually read it yourself. You encourage me to "go ahead to get these books", yet you have not done so yourself??? The reason I know you haven't, is because that text is not from Vol 2, page 50. It is from page 251.

Westcott was touring Europe in the summer of 1865, and one of the places he saw was La Selette, a village in France where the Catholics claim an apparition of Mary spoke to two children in 1846, and where many claims of miracles of healings have taken place since. While at La Selette, he was given a tour and told of various claims of miracles. Westcott was not Catholic, but the occasion did give him pause to reflect on miracles in general and why Catholics believe in apparitions/healings like those claimed for La Salette. The fuller quote is "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette. I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of miracles." Visiting La Salette made him wonder what past truth was twisted over time into "Mariolatry", and also made him think about how he could give a lecture on miracles. This quote does NOT indicate Westcott was a "closet Catholic" and that he "devoted himself to the Catholic." Quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes, exactly. He was wondering what "forgotten truth" is responsible for what he believes has been changed into idolatry.

Nothing I find in the surrounding pages goes into a discussion like that, but perhaps you are thinking of another passage. I'll check out the "Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours" quote in context again later when I get home, maybe that's where it is.

As were the KJV translators. Askjo, I don't have Hort's "Life and Letters" yet. I'd rather see the full context before commenting further. Can you provide it?

Brian

 

Talking about something does not mean you support it!!!

 

Askjo, Give it up.

You've obviously confused the terms "Mariolatry" and "Mariology".

Here are dictionary definitions of the two:


Main Entry: Mar·i·ol·a·try
Pronunciation: "mer-E-'ä-l&-trE, "mar-E-, "mA-rE-
Function: noun
Date: 1612
: excessive veneration of the Virgin Mary
- Mar·i·ol·a·ter /-'ä-l&-t&r/ noun


Main Entry: Mar·i·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -'ä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Date: 1857
: study or doctrine relating to the Virgin Mary
- Mar·i·o·log·i·cal /-&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective


A Catholic wouldn't associate his beliefs with the first- he would however associate his beliefs with the second.

 

Askjo said:

Which church has the Mariolatry? Baptist? or Catholic?

Irrelevant to the issue of your un-Christian slander of Westcott.

Hort was Anglican and closet Catholic because he wrote to Westcott about the Mariolatry.

Some arguments are so utterly without merit that they don't need refuting, just repeating.

 

(Duplicate. Yoink!)