Hazardous Materials.

I'm just referencing the KJV revisers. would you really claim that the majority were Calvinists? Most were anti-Puritans with Dr. Miles Smith being the most sympathetic toward them. Of course it doesn't even need to be said that being Puritan meant that you were strongly Calvinistic.

 

The issue-at-hand has nothing to do with this forum.

I guess that so many have told you to take a break from translational issues that you had to vent somehow.

You are still wrong as rain by clinging to your KJVO stance.

 

And you talk about others not reading what you've written in the past!!!!:BangHead: I've told you REPEATEDLY I'm not KJVO. I am just not blind to the KJV slander on here in the guise of debunking KJVO. I PREFER the KJV......however, my pastor and most of my fellow church members use the NKJV, or the NIV, which I have NO problem with. You've treated me badly since I've joined here, yet you get all upset with someone when they post something you don't like! Someone forgot whether you were male or female, and you get very upset and say nasty things to them! Someone else GENTLY tries to point that you should be more Christlike, and you insult them too! I think that's called being a hypocrite.

 

It is true that the Puritan party is associated with Calvinism. According to all I have read about the KJV translators, that period of English history, I would claim that the majority of the KJV translators would have still be classified as Calvinist up to 1611. At that time, King James I himself was still associated with Calvinism even though King James was very anti-Puritan. After Archbishop Richard Bancroft's death in 1610, King James I appointed a Calvinist George Abbot [a KJV translator] to be Archbishop. The official Church of England position at the Synod of Dort was still for Calvinism. Calvinists among the KJV translators would include Laurence Chaderton, Thomas Holland, George Abbot, John Reynolds, Samuel Ward, Miles Smith.

Although the majority of the KJV translators could be considered more members of the High Church party party than leaning to the Puritan party, those that were in what would be called the "High Church" party before and around 1611 do not seem to have yet actively joined the Arminian side. It is in the later part of King James' reign [after 1611] that the Arminian views gained popularity or acceptance. A number of the KJV translators would be associated with this Arminian side, but for the most part they are associated with it after 1611. There may be some indications of leanings toward the Arminian side on the part of a few KJV translators [such as Lancelot Andrewes and Dutch Thomson and possibly John Overall, John Richardson] before 1611, but the development or at least promotion of these views seems to have been more after 1611. The High Church views and Arminian views seem to have become more associated together at some point after 1611. Again it is in the later years of King James that the Arminian party is said to have been gaining power in the Church of England. Now the terms "High Church," "Arminian," and "Anglo-Catholic" may all be used to describe the same party, but I do not think that was true before the last years of the reign of King James.

 

What you deny with one voice you take back with another. Why have you recommended Floyd Jones -- an ardent KJVO proponent?

Why have you said that you wished there were only one version of the Bible ..."I feel Satan uses this to deceive."

Why have you said:"All versions in English are A.unnecessary B. cause confusion and division C. Cast doubt for new Christians on the inerrant nature of God's word."

'I never said you need to limit it to one version."

You have said the following things about the NIV.

"I do not care for the NIV.'
"I don't like the NIV."
"The NIV is a terrible translation."
"I don't like the NIV.Ok?"
"I wouldn't give ya .02 for an NIV."

Would you object if someone would have said the same things about the KJV? Just substitute the letters KJV instead of NIV in your above quoted words.

Over and over you have complained that with the various versions your church and Bible study group uses only causes confusion and doubt. It has been very clear from your many posts on the issue that you think it's a bad thing. So you do indeed have a problem with it -- unless you have had a big change of heart and haven't mentioned it yet.

No, I haven't. I have tried my best to set you straight about things as several others have and you have gotten upset.

But I'm attempting to understand you. That's because you have said :"I've had a lot of stress in my life lately.I hate change in my life."

"I go overboard at times. I just happen to love the KJV and I guess I'm too defensive of it."

You've said:"I own different versions and COMPARE them, not CONSULT them. Big difference! And comparing them leads me into confusion, which is why I stick with the KJV."

"'Oh, I like the NKJ a lot."
"I didn't care for it [NKJ] at all."


It's hard to make heads or tails of the above. But that's what you have left us with.

 

There once was this creature in the garden full of all subtility and you also have noticesd his antics and expsoed him.

I have learned today that I am "cult member" because some here view me with their process rooted in all subtility.

I wonder if the BB rules deal with the subtile attacks against other Christians like they do when the same people report, persistently report, our words?

Mob rules.

 

I was only "attacking" the mentality and reasoning. You have attacked me as if i am not capable of a rational discussion.

You might not see what I see on the subject, bit it is very telling. Why, even your reply to me is an example.

I don't "look" for shortcomings about people, I try to keep my focus on their positive qualities. You have a few, but this wasn't one example of it.

 

You are way out of line HG.

I have reported his own words. If that is his undoing -- what's wrong with such reporting? I didn't make up anything. If you are so against the truth -- why are you here?

 

And this "attack" is just what?


These schoolboy antics are what should not be tolerated.

I'm am just so sorry those who disagree with me do this thing.

I believe it is outright slander.:sleep:

 

http://www.avpublications.org/

Feel free to check out the veracity of her marriage licenses.