King James

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bob Rogers, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Bob Rogers

    Bob Rogers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    There`s been a lot written about King James and much of it has been trash. I wasn`t sure where to post this; but the debates and disputes (more disputes than debates) over KJVO have made this appear relevant to this forum. Are gnostic teachings in the KJV? Are they translation mistakes? The truth is, that the 1st century Church may`ve been more gnostic than we realize (or are willing to accept).

    On Friday October 13,1307, the King of France (as agent for the Pope) moved against the Knights Templers. The Knights Templers were given refuge by King Edward I of England. That resulted in the development of the Scottish Rite Freemasons. St. Claire (later Sinclair) Master Masons built the Collegiate of St. Matthew (Rosslyn Chapel) on the site of the ancient Celtic Oracle of Saturn.

    King James was the son of Mary of Scotland and William Stewart. King James` tudors steered him in the direction of the Knoxist Reformation, although he liked the Church of England`s view of Divine Rite. King James opposed mysticism in all forms! A Master Mason appealed to the King to defend his against charges; but King James backed off and stayed away from the entire issue. King James also urged caution in making allegations. A piece of King James` writings on the issue have been re-printed by the Wiccans. (their explanation for re-printing it is in their perception of how it was used in "Witch Hunts") Was there Knights Templer presence among the translators? Absolutely!

    The facts show, that King James was a good Scottish Presbyterian. King James opposed mysticism. The negative things printed about King James have been slander! That`s not a KJVO opinion. That`s fact, that can be backed up by King James` own words!

    Anything gnostic would`ve had to have been encryted enough to avoid King James` detection. That doesn`t mean, that it couldn`t be in there. It`s not completely impossible, that the original writers placed gnostic points in the original writings.

    Bob
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if King James was one who preferred the same sex, a murderer, and a hater of the brethren it does not change anything contained in the text of the KJV. Personally I could care less what <snipped> was or was not, what matters to me is what is in the KJV. The KJV is an excellent translation of the Word of the Most High.

    [ September 09, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    It is not the King James translation that is gnostic, but the KJVO teachings and beliefs (the hard-core, anyway).

    The King James version is a fine piece of translational workmanship. While not perfect, and have an Anglican slant, it is a great monument of biblical translation.

    But, when people begin to spout off off-the-wall nonsense, and then tell you "If you understood, then you would understand," you have gnosticism.

    'Deeper' knowledge, 'secret' knowledge, 'enlightenment' are all gnostic catchphrases, and all characterize the false doctrine of 'King James Version Only' and its ardent supporters.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Amen, Trotter.

    AVL1984
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The only real impact James VI had on the version that bears his name was in the RULES established for translating.

    See threads on those rules by doing a "search".
     
  6. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    But, when people begin to spout off off-the-wall nonsense, and then tell you "If you understood, then you would understand," you have gnosticism.

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

    How wonderful for you to paint such a picture with the very words that you all have taken of mine to twist them in a way to present me as you so desire, regardless of the truth, and to which is not at all what I have ACTUALLY said, and then have the nerve to call it gnosticism. Shame on you! Like I said, you wouldn't know gnosticism if it was staring you right in your face. I am done speaking with you Trotter. You are just plain mean and unkind person and a liar also.


    As for the KJB Bible being gnostic, or having gnostic influence, I do not know where you got this from, but it is so far from the truth. If anything should be looked at as having possible gnostic influence, it should be the mv's that come from the texts that were produced by two secret society men, called Westcott and Hort.

    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  7. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one on any of these threads have called the Bible gnostic except for you Michelle. You have slander the Word of God by saying the MV's have a gnostic influence. A word you continue to use, but by your use are clearly ignorant of.

    Bro Tony
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Agree with you, Michelle, that no one should call an English translation of God's Word as "gnostic".

    Teachings such as the King James only sect under Ruckman (we have his own words to condemn him) has IS "gnostic" and should be condemned.
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    " The Knights Templers were given refuge by King Edward I of England. That resulted in the development of the Scottish Rite Freemasons."
    ''
    Some branches of the Freemasons claimed Knight Templar ancestry to be more appealable to potential members of noble blood. A secret society originating among glorified bricklayers is much to common for a nobleman to join you see.
    Not that real freemasons (traveling mastermasons specializing in building cathedrals) had anything to do with the origin of Freemasonry as a secret society.
     
  10. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    For clarity sake. NO group of Freemasons can genuinely claim Knight Templar ancestry. All groups that have done so have lied, usually to make themselves more palatable to prospective members of noble blood.
     
  12. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    This is pretty bold. Especially for someone that goes around attacking God's Word as given to the English speaking people in Modern times. The only liar I see are Gipp,Ruckman,Cloud, Riplinger. And those who believe like them.


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

    I only attack that which has attacked the word of God. You all take it personally, and say I am attacking you. However, you have all attacked me, and many countless others on these boards because we warn you of these things that have been done. THen many will even attack the true word of God for the sake of this compromise. It is not I, who is attacking God's word of truth. I am trying my best to show you who and what has. I and others have tried to warn you all of these things, and all that is returned is personal attacks, false assumptions, labels, and ultimately attacking the truth and compromising with the error. If you feel personally attacked by me, for saying that many are compromising with error, well I am sorry, but it is the truth. Anyone who can justify verses of scripture being omitted, shows they are compromising, or they are decieved.

    I don't know about Riplinger, whether she is a liar. I do know David Cloud is not a liar, and a very good christian man. I have only read a little by Gipp, but so far I would say he is an honest God-loving, God-fearing man. I know nothing of Ruckman. Like I have said, These people only have confirmed what the Lord has already shown me, and what I know by faith.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  13. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle wrote:
    Short answer: She is.

    I've read her book New Age Bible Versions from cover-to-cover a few years ago. I wanted to see for myself whether or not there was any credible basis for her claims. As I read her book, I looked up quotes as much as I could to see whether or not she was quoting people accurately & fairly. Her alleged "quotes" of W & H are by far some of the most eggregiously false. I'm not at home right now, so I don't have either Riplinger's book or any of W & H's writings to provide an actual example, but here's a fictional yet representative one:

    Riplinger might quote W & H as making this statement: "Satan is...our Lord."

    Of course, on its face this quote appears outrageous- why, it would seem to absolutely confirm Riplinger's charges that W & H were outright Satan worshippers. Riplinger's use of ellipses in virtually every quotation she provides is the first clue that there's probably more than meets the eye to the quotes though. In reality, here's what the full quote, in context, might have actually said:

    "Satan is the father of all evil and all lies. Righteousness and truth however both reside entirely in Jesus Christ, our Saviour and our Lord."

    You may think I'm kidding, but there are actually examples of misquotations this flagrant in Riplinger's books.
     
  14. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Some of the quotes the ripper puts together come from pages apart. On occasion she pulls stuff from different chapters and even different books and calls it factual. If it wasn't so sad that people actually believe her garbage, it might be funny. :eek:
     
  15. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJVO position, re: verses not appearing in certain MVs:

    "Anyone who can justify verses of scripture being omitted, shows they are compromising, or they are deceived."

    Non-KJVO position, re: verses appearing in KJV/TR with little or no manuscript support (e.g. Lk 17:36, Ac 8:37, 1Jn 5:7):

    "Anyone who can justify verses of scripture being _added_, shows they are compromising, or they are deceived."

    The knife cuts both ways....
     
  16. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle,

    No one said the KJV was a gnostic work - and if they had said this then they'd be wrong!

    But if one were to say that one must have a certain knowledge or understanding in order to see the truth - well now that does sound a little like the gnostic's claims.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is well and good. The problem I often see with you is that you frequently fail to discern betwen the Word of God and KJVOism. When someone debates KJVOism, you treat that as an attack upon the KJV. Therein lies a problem. I love the KJV, and defend it whenever it's attacked. However, I do not defend single-translation-onlyism of any translation, since it is false and unscriptural doctrine.
     
  18. michelle

    michelle
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    But if one were to say that one must have a certain knowledge or understanding in order to see the truth - well now that does sound a little like the gnostic's claims.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Do you believe that all christians understand all the same things all at the same time? Or do you believe that some christians can be decieved in an area, while others are not? If one is decieved in an area, do you think that they will understand the truth? How is one to help another out of deception? Or should we, as christians, stand by and say nothing who do know? Is this loving them in truth? It seems to me, it is rather falsely loving them in compromise. You can call it whatever you want, but the truth is, I am not gnostic for telling others that they are not understanding, and trying my very best to help others understand. This is what I have been doing to the best of my ability, and that God has so pleased to have given me. Could I be decieved in areas that they are not? Absolutely. I know I am not decieved in this matter, because it is something the Lord has shown me, and it is something that is also evidenced, and where the Lord has led me in service. Many are blindly looking away, and saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. If I was gnostic, I wouldn't care one iota for you, or whether you understood or not, and therefore would not even tell you such. I tell you that you aren't understanding, so that you look at it again, what was said, or what was provided, to get you to think and reason the matter out for yourself. I could easily, and better for me, not say anything. But I do care, and desire that others will understand also.

    Does this offend you that I say you are decieved in this area? Well if it does, you might want to ask yourself, is it possible that a christian can be decieved? Wouldn't you want to be pulled out of that deception? Jesus said, that if the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the ditch. If some are blind to this truth, and I do not say anything, nor tell them the truth, and I compromise on it, I am then condoning the deception, and I will have to account someday for not saying something, that the Lord has shown me to share. Many have given you all evidence of where your deception and compromise is, yet you do not see it, or you ignore it, and this I cannot understand. Therefore, I tell you the truth, that you are not understanding. This in no way makes me gnostic, as many of you are claiming, and trying to make it seem. It is very insulting to say the least, and quite honestly is saying I am not saved. One cannot be gnostic and be saved.


    love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Welcome to the club michelle.

    It seems apparent to me that you are not even aware of the fact that this is what you have done daily, many hours a day to the folks here at the BB by calling the Word of God that they love and prefer by unspeakable names.

    How does it feel?

    HankD
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    When are you going to see Michelle that anyone on the other side can make the EXACT same claims you make in your last post along with the EXACT same accusations?

    If anyone had posted your past post against you you would have accused them of slander and hatefulness.
     

Share This Page

Loading...