1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Satan’s lie, of King James Onlyism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Jun 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tater77

    Tater77 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pilgrim2009 wrote:"You do not seem to understand that the KJV is translated from a whole different set of manuscripts and the ESV is not translated from the o-called older and better."

    http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts

    The ESV uses "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland."

    And the ESV tends to be an eclectic text on its own a bit. Read the following:
    "In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition."
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I, for one, care about what Pilgrim thinks as much as I care about what GAR, Ruckman, etal think.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pilgrim, I'm always amazed at folks who will champion the idea of God's preserving His word (a biblical notion), but then decide to limit God on how and when God can preserve said word. Why would one have a desire to tell God what He can and cannot do? Quite presumptuous. They also ignore a supremely important point...that the preservation of one particular version is a patently un-Biblical notion. God preserves His Word, not a version.

    Secondly...since when did Webster's dictionary acheive the status of inspired writings?

    Thirdly...I find the statement "God Bless America and the KJV Bible" problematic. Do you get to decide that God cannot bless certain versions?

    Fourthly...Pilgrim, time and time again, uses the "consistency" arguments, the age-old "things that are different are not the same" line of thought. Funny thing is...the 1611 and 1769 and 1823 are different from each other. Which KJV is the "real deal?" (crickets)

    If so, perhaps you'd like to explain to the student I led to Christ last week that the faith that came by hearing...came by hearing what you would consider something other than God's word.

    Sad.

    *sigh* Remember....I love and cherish God's word. I love, cherish, and use my KJV. I just stop short of an unbiblical argument that it alone, to the exclusion of every single other translation, is God's word. My KJV is the word of God. So is my ESV.
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ESV is translated from the oldest and best manuscripts. It at least agrees with it's OWN underlying text, which the KJV does not (their are discrepancies between the Textus Receptus, and the KJV.)

    Tell me, why do you think the KJV originally had the Apocrypha in it? Answer: It was translated by Roman Catholic Anglicans. People who believed in praying to saints, who believed in the Redemptive powers of Mary, etc., translated the KJV.

    Why would you use a heretical government sponsored version of the scriptures?



    WHAT???! The Underlying text of the King James version was translated from a manuscript originally assembled by a Roman Catholic Apologist (Erasmus), where the Roman Catholic Vulgate was re-translated into Greek!! You CAN'T get more Roman Catholic than the manuscripts underlying the KJV!!

    Not only that, the Dhouay Rheims Bible (The "official" Roman Catholic Bible), was consulted in it's early forms, by the KJV translators. The translators, according to their OWN notes, were commanded by the King to give preeminence to variants favored by the Roman Catholic Fathers.

    Bro, I love you, but you have a LOT to learn!




    Yes. In the original languages. We have for example, a piece of the Gospel of John, that may well be the autographa, or one generation removed.

    They are on my computer. Lots of others have them on theirs. Some have hard copies.

    Again, they are on my computer. Notice that God also promises that as the last days approach, their would be a great increase of knowledge. All I have to do is look at my LOGOS program, to understand that this prophecy has been fullfilled. But according to you, knowledge is stagnant.

    The Bible CLEARLY teaches progressive revelation: KJV onlyism, stands against this truth.

    But He is just not powerful enough to preserve it in modern English, right?


    This is absolutely ridiculous. The KJV has more than 500 words that actually mean something completely different in modern English. It's form of Elizabethan, is more difficult than Shakespeare, which is High School level. I have been working with youth for most of my Christian life, and EVERY ONE of them, has complained that the KJV is incomprehensible. I want my Kids to be able to understand God's word: KJV onlyism, is a tool of Satan, used to cloud the mind of the gullible, and keep this from happening.

    I WILL say different, because that is silly. A person can make MUCH more money, NOT paying translators, NOT paying all of the costs to set up production, etc. for a new version, and just offering a pretty reprint of the UNCOPYRITED, FREE, KJV. That is just common sense.

    Quite frankly, ONE of the reasons for the ESV, was that the Covenant theologians which translated it, though that other modern versions were biased dispensationally. I figured you might appreciate that.


    As far as the rest: I have spent my life studying this subject, and I USED to be a part of this cult. Then I realized that my position did not make sense.

    I encourage you to study this matter further, from reliable sources, instead of cult leaders.
     
  5. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    To answer your inflammation of cranial tissue: God is not confused.

    The tell-tale evidences against many versions is the confusing wordings they use which also do give other impressions than what should be given to anyone who reads the Bible.

    To attack the KJV by your remarks against Roman Catholocism won't get very far with anyone in the medical field. Why? Because medical terminology inherently makes use of Latin which also many Bibles we find today are part of the preservation of God's word and from a Latin influence.

    To say that anything that came out of the RCC is completely wrong means God didn't save anyone for around 1300 years because most Bibles were written in Latin. You would have Martin Luther in hell.:tonofbricks:
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You're going too far here. Do you honestly think the KJV was heretical?!

    That's debatable. I think even non-Christian young people would be more familiar with some KJV phraseology than many passages from the works of William Shakespeare.
     
  7. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some people actually do more for the advancement of Ruckmanism than they realize.

    I know Peter Ruckman is a nut. He is right about quite a few things, but he is just a man.

    To attack the KJV because of it's place of developement is just plain dumb.

    Does anyone who uses this arguement realize that the enitre Old Testament was written by people who definitely were not believers in Jesus Christ at the time!:tonofbricks:
     
  8. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    There it is, another attack against the person when you simply don't agree with them.

    Maybe we should start a thread on people we care about as a means of validating our arguements.
     
  9. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    Say what?

    I think you HD need a lesson or two.Someone has not been completely honest with you about Erasmus so here is a lesson.

    I dont agree 100% with Gail Riplinger but she lays these facts about Erasmus out.Erasmus own words below.

    Erasmus was raised a Catholic, and did not openly "leave" the Roman Catholic religion, but he did not believe Roman Catholic doctrine either. In fact, his best friends and defenders were the Christians, like the Anabaptists and Martin Luther. Here is proof from researcher Gail Riplinger.

    Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions and The Language of the King James Bible has written another excellent book, **The History of the Bible: Erasmus and the Received Text. In it she proves the Christian, Biblical beliefs of Erasmus and exposes the evil motives of the people who try to defame him. The following research can be found in her book.

    Did Erasmus' contemporaries believe he was a Catholic?

    The following are quotes from various researchers:

    "In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died." 1

    "He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."2

    [He was an] "ex monk … a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."3

    "In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."4

    "[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers" 5

    "The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation"6 of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

    In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."7


    In his own words

    Listen to Erasmus explain his own views:

    "All I ask for is the leisure to live wholly to God, to repent of the sins of my foolish youth, to study Holy Scriptures, and to read or write something of real value. I could do nothing of this , in a convent."8

    In 1505 he wrote, "I shall sit down to Holy Scriptures with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it… all these three years I have been working entirely at Greek and have not been , playing with it."9

    Here are some other quotes, cited by Riplinger:

    "As to me, all I have sought has been to open my contemporaries' eyes and bring them back from ritual to true Christianity."

    "Read the Gospels … and see how we have degenerated."

    "A man of piety would feel that he could not employ his time better than in bringing little ones to Christ."

    "We must forget ourselves, and think , first of Christ's glory."10

    Are these the words of a Roman Catholic?

    The judgment of history

    Even historian Will Durant wrote of him that by 1500 (when he was 34 years old), he had "formed his resolve to study and edit the Greek New Testament as the distilled essence of that real Christianity which, in the judgement [sic] of reformers and humanists alike, had been overlaid and concealed by the dogmas , and accretions of centuries." 11

    These facts and others lead us to believe that Erasmus did not believe in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion. We see why he worked so hard to find God's preserved words and publish them for all to read. A copy of the second edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament ended up in a school in Wittenberg, Germany, where a monk named Martin Luther found it. That Greek text helped Martin Luther to start the Reformation, which brought us the King James Bible.

    Erasmus, who was counted by everyone around him as a Christian, not a Catholic, helped to bring about the resurrection of the preserved Bible (not the Roman Catholic perversion), which in turn helped bring the Protestant Reformation.

    For more background on Erasmus, and his place in the development of the Textus Receptus, see "Was Erasmus, the editor of the Textus Receptus, a "good" Roman Catholic?"

    Footnotes
    Gail Riplinger, The History of the Bible: Erasmus and the Received Text (Ararat, Virginia: AV Publications Corp., ©2000)
    This will soon be released as part of a larger book but the information above is currently available in spiral-bound format on request. Contact www.avpublications.com.
    Return to top


    The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909), vol. I., p. 166
    Return to text

    Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Scribner's, 1928), Vol VI, p. 83.
    Return to text

    Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 198. Riplinger notes of Erasmus, "He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel" (p. 1).
    Return to text

    Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Scribner's, 1969), pp. 277-278
    Return to text

    Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation (New York: MJF Books, 1957), Vol. 6, p. 437.
    Return to text

    Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, Vol. 6, p. 285
    Return to text

    Will Durant, p. 435
    Return to text

    J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894), p. 25.
    Return to text

    J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 87.
    Return to text

    J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus, pp. 260, 356, 118, 349.
    Return to text

    Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, Vol. 6, p. 273.
    Return to text
     
    #29 pilgrim2009, Jun 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2009
  10. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    My middle ground:

    I love and appreciate the KJV. It is a wonderful translation.

    I agree with Harold: Ruckman is a nut.

    To claim the KJV is anything less than the word of God is the height of lunacy.

    So is to claim that the ESV or NIV is not the selfsame Word of God.
     
  11. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, bro. Sorry, that was not stated clearly. The PEOPLE who translated the KJV, were heretical.
     
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    excellent good post
     
  13. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they did. Apparently you have never read any of the exchanges between Erasmus and the reformers.

    Dude, Erasmus WROTE some of the "devotionals" to Mary!

    Look up the "Paean to the Virgin Mother". He calls Mary the "True Goddess of Justice". He called her "Co redemptress" etc. And EVEN wrote that the reason that Christ Came to the earth, was because of her.

    Bro, I don't have to listen to what quacks like Gail Riplinger say. I can read Erasmus for myself. Perhaps you should go to original sources, rather than reading ANYTHING that the plagiarizing fairy tale writer Gail Riplinger says.
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Are you saying that Wm. Tyndale was a heretic? A large portion of the KJV is Tyndale's translation.
     
  15. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, just the Mary worshiping Anglican translators.

    FYI, I have no problem with the KJV, other than some contradictions caused by poor translation (which Atheist apologists exploit), and it's confusing language, which scare the younger generations away from reading scripture.

    I do, however, have a problem with the KJV only cult.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I attacked no one. I made a statement. You may put me on ignore now. I'm going to do likewise. Bye.
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Harold paid special attention to me by informing me that he was going to put me on ignore. Well, ignorance is bliss I suppose.
     
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I always find this attention amusing, rather than merely ignoring someone.

    Ed
     
  19. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    good gracious...some folks must have nothing but a screenful of "this person is on your ignore list.'

    THAT makes for an interesting BB.... [/sarcasm]
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Sorry for hanging my laundry out to dry.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...