KJO point of view

It's sad to watch people grasp at straws to try to prop up a false doctrine. The MV's are NOT of the Devil any more than the KJV is. No one can or has proven otherwise.

Again, it must anger the Lord greatly that we WASTE hours and money on this unbiblical issue. Not to mention the unnecessary division that it brings to the Body of Christ.

 

Remember, it takes 2 to argue. If MV advocates wouldn't rise to the bait there wouldn't BE any debate....sort of like a business meeting when a motion dies for lack of a second.

This is why I generally do not involve myself in these discussions, although I will admit to reading through them usually...up to where they start to get really nasty....and usually end up shaking my head in disbelief at how ugly Christians can be towards one another over God's Word.

I read the version I prefer. You read the version you prefer. I really don't see why it should be a cause for such debate. As I stated in the other thread, while I am not a KJV onlyist, I read the KJV and have good reasons for doing so. I've tried the MV, purchased several and they sit, unused, on my bookshelf. I'm comfortable with my KJV....and I'm too old to change horses in the middle of the stream, I suppose.

 

But there shouldn't be any "bait" in the first place- especially unbiblical and untrue bait. That goes for both parties.

I'm with you on the rest of your statement, except that I have changed horses... :thumbs:

 

Agreed, yet diamondlay provided bait herself with a link to videos that state the MV's attack the Deity of Christ. The thing is that those who make such videos, books, know they will attract others in so doing, and make it as chimerical as they can while maintaining a small amount of credibility for said audience.

I don't know why people believe inaccurate drivel and lies that come from videos such as these.

Attempt to get such to read and study things without bells and whistles, and without mention that the old devil is behind it, it is cast aside as irrelevant and boring. Throw in the devil and other mistruths, it sells out instantly and interest grows dramatically. Just ponder this truth for a minute.

Perhaps throw in a UFO or two as well, and mention someone "behind all this" was in the occult, or practiced sodomy, have attacked the Deity of Christ, and you will have them (said audience) mesmerized.

I've also changed horses. Reading through the NASB has definitely been more of a blessing to me that I would have imagined.

- Peace

 

How does "no one held a gun to my head to force me to watch them" have anything to do with this? This apparently means you're embarrassed that a cursory view of these videos makes one instantly aware the things said within them are in fact lies and sensationalisitic apologues.

I love when people assume another hasn't investigated, all the while they are believing lies, half-truths &c, hook line and sinker, without rightly concluding after examination that what they are believing is filled with lies. But this is status quo these days.

I've examined the viewpoints, have heard this drivel that you espouse most of my life. And I have learned from it: that people will believe lies, and most won't investigate the things said, but will repeat these lies and spread them like wildfire exposing other gullible souls.

Maybe this nonsense is new and fascinating to you, but after being at many preaching fellowships, churches, KJVO seminars, watching many videos and reading much on this there is nothing new in these videos that I watched.

They're fabricated lies and partial truths.


Consider:

"The naive believes everything, But the sensible man considers his steps." Proverbs 14:15 NASB

"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15 KJV

Again, throw in "the old devil", a few other fantastical lies, "attacks on God", "New Age Mysticism", "KJV numerical proofs" and other things alluding to darkness and evil, and you, among others are instantly and deeply interested. Fact.

That is what I find interesting. May the wise also consider these things.

People who believe these lies should be ashamed of themselves for believing them, for not investigating and exposing the errors, and for spreading them to others.

 

What comments from a poster who admitted that he did not read the documented evidence in posts that proved that other English translations more clearly and precisely presented the deity of Christ at some verses than the KJV did and thus disproving the claim that all modern translations attack the deity of Christ.

KJV-only advocates indicate that they make judgments without examining all the evidence.

 

KJV-only advocates continually discount what the footnotes in the 1611 edition of the KJV state, suggesting that the footnotes do not have authority.

Yet KJV-only advocates misuse one footnote in one translation and suggest that it proves their incorrect accusation that claims that all modern translations supposedly attack the deity of Christ. What kind of sound reasoning would reach that faulty conclusion?

The NKJV is translated from the same original language text as the KJV, which demonstrates that KJV-only advocates are wrong to try to use their guilt by association argument against the NKJV.

 

Great point.

In addition, not only did he and others fail to examine the evidence, he has also falsely accused another of not examining evidence, which, by the way the accused did examine.

But no matter what you say, what evidence you give, nor does it matter that you employ common sense rebuttals proving these incorrect, they will come back with an argument and even go to the extent of bamboozeling themselves into believing what they've said.

You have to count what is at stake and what you are really up against with them:

When one tends to believe Riplinger and Riplinger-esque types there really is nothing you can do but have sympathy toward them.

- Peace

 

unscriptural views of the KJV translators

What real issue is avoided by your KJV-only double standard? KJV-only posters do not practice what they preach. KJV-only advocates trust a version [the KJV] that was translated by men who held some unscriptural beliefs.

Here are just two examples.

unscriptural belief in baptismal regeneration

The Church of England translators of the KJV and the Church of England at the time of the making of the KJV kept the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Article XXVII of this church's Thirty-nine articles implies this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine is stated more plainly in the Catechism of this church and in the baptismal service of the Liturgy, which pronounces every child after baptism to be regenerated (The Creeds of Christendom, p. 639). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127). Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

unscriptural belief concerning the making of the sign of the cross

Leonard Hutton, a KJV translator, wrote a book in 1605 defending making the sign of the cross on a child's forehead in baptism (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 94). Did the Holy Spirit direct or guide this KJV translator in the writing of his book? Brightman pointed out that KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes at the Hampton Court Conference "was especially prominent in the defence of the sign of the cross in baptism" (Private Devotions, p. xxxvii). Ross Williamson wrote: "When the Puritans objected to the making of the sign of the cross in baptism as 'the superstitious and wicked institution of a new sacrament,' the king appealed to Andrewes, who answered, 'It appears out of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen that it was used in immortali lavacro,' and so determined the matter" (Four Stuart Portraits, p. 79). Gillespie observed that "Saravia [a KJV translator] holdeth that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be Christians" (Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, p. 110). The Book of Common Prayer stated: “Then the priest shall make a cross upon the child’s forehead,“ and John Booty indicated that one of the 1604 canons made by Bancroft enforced this making of the sign of the cross(pp. 275, 404). In his chapter on the sign of the cross, Peirce wrote: "They have brought into the church a rite, which has no warrant by any divine institution, and to which they ascribe in a manner the same nature and virtue with sacraments, though at the same time they deny it to be a sacrament" (Vindication, p. 446). Calamy affirmed that the Book of Common Prayer “obliges ministers to use the sign of the cross in baptism” (Nonconformist’s, p. 40). On the other hand, Peter Ruckman claimed: “No attempt at any time was made by the King James translators to honor the man-made traditions of Rome” (Bible Babel, p. 2).

 

You indicated that you made the incorrect judgment that the purpose of my posts was supposedly to bury the thread. My purpose was clearly to answer the incorrect claim that all modern versions attack the deity of Christ.

You also seem to have made the judgment that providing documented evidence was being "excessively wordy." Your judgement seems to suggest that reading a post for two to five minutes was too much, but listening to almost an hour of incorrect wordy accusations was to be encouraged. Your comment about skipping over my posts suggest that your judgment was not to read and examine the evidence presented. Of course, you could not make any proper judgments concerning the evidence I presented if you did not read it.

 

unscriptural belief in apostolic succession and Episcopal church government

A number of the leading KJV translators and the overseer of the translating [Archbishop Richard Bancroft] held a belief in the Church of England's doctrine of apostolic succession and in the divine right of a hierarchical Episcopal church government with an archbishop with authority over bishops, bishops with authority over pastors [priests], etc.


Paine asserted: "Given the times and the number of bishops among the learned men, the new Bible was certain to sustain the cult of bishops wherever the chance arose" (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 95-96). At least some of the KJV translators recognized Episcopal Church government as of divine intention and institution. Richard Bancroft had preached that “the doctrine of the Church of England, is pure, and holy: the government therefore, both in respect of her Majesty, of our Bishops is lawful, and godly: the Book of Common Prayer containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God” (Seymour, English Sermon, I, p. 124). Adam Nicolson wrote: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75). The Dictionary of National Biography maintained that “he [Bancroft] contrived to cast a slur upon the principles of Presbyterianism” (I, p. 1029). Paine noted how Thomas Bilson, one of the editors of the KJV, was ready to squelch the Presbyterian nonsense which King James hated, and thus the word "presbyters" appears only once in the KJV with the Greek word thus rendered in many other places as "elders" (Men, p. 97). This evidence indicates that Bancroft, Bilson, and other prelates would have been willing to attempt to weaken any verses used to defend Presbyterian church government. These Church of England bishops would have objected even more strongly to congregational church government views than they did to Presbyterian views.


Williston Walker noted that Richard Bancroft, Adrian Saravia, and Thomas Bilson "affirmed a jure divino right for episcopacy" (History of the Christian Church, p. 406). Peter Milward maintained that Bancroft, Saravia, Thomas Bilson, and William Barlow claimed an "apostolic origin and a divine right for the episcopal institution" (Religious Controversies, pp. 16-17). Collinson pointed out that Bancroft "seems to have been the engineer and promoter of the jus divinum" (Religion of Protestants, p. 17). McClintock affirmed that Bancroft "was the first Anglican divine who publicly maintained the divine right of bishops" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 631). Eadie noted that “Bancroft was among the first to defend episcopacy as of absolute divine right” (English Bible, II, pp. 271-272). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Bancroft “asserted, with a plainness hitherto unheard in the English church, the claims of episcopacy to be regarded as of divine origin” (I, p. 1029). James MacKinnon asserted that Bancroft held to an “extreme doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy” (History, III, p. 24). McClure observed that Bancroft preached that "bishops were a distinct order from priests [Church of England name for pastors], and that they had a superiority over them by divine right, and directly from God" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 126). Samuel Hopkins noted that “the preacher was fairly understood to assert that bishops--such as were then in the Church of England--governed the Church and the inferior clergy jure divino, by a right inherent to their office and derived from God alone; that without such a hierarchy there could be no true Church; that except from such bishops of the Church of England there could be no true ordaining to the Gospel ministry” (Puritans, III, p. 335). J. B. Marsden reported that Bancroft “maintained in his [1589] sermon, that bishops were, by the institution of God himself, an order in the Christian ministry superior to priests and deacons and distinct from them; and that they governed the church and the inferior clergy, jure divino, by a right inherent to their office, and derived from God alone. The denial of these truths, he said, was heresy” (History, p. 228). Alexander McClure asserted that Bancroft was strenuous for the divine right of diocesan bishops (KJV Translators, p. 219). Thomas Bilson wrote a book in defense of episcopacy or prelacy that was first printed in 1593 with a second edition printed in 1610 and with a Latin edition printed in 1611. Bilson’s book further developed the view advocated by Bancroft in his sermon. Did Bilson have any possible reasons and motives to see that the translation that he revised did not conflict with his interpretations in the 1610 edition of his book?

KJV translator Hadrian Saravia maintained the authority of bishops by apostolic warrant and claimed that "by apostles are meant bishops" (Paine, Men, p. 35). Saravia, who had assisted in the drafting of the Calvinistic Belgic Confession, wrote a book championing the cause of episcopacy in 1560 [or 1590] (Butterworth, Literary History of the Bible, p. 195). V. J. K. Brook confirmed that Saravia wrote a book “which insisted that episcopacy was both primitive and Scriptural” (Whitgift, p. 156). Alexander McClure also pointed out Saravia's "zeal for the divine right of episcopacy" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 93). Saravia wrote: “Now the Episcopal Order has been every where received by all Churches, wherefore it is an Apostolical tradition and divine institution” (Treatise, p. 199). Saravia addressed his book “to the Most Noble the Prelates, and to the Most Reverend Fathers and Lords in Christ, the Lords and Bishops and most vigilant Pastors of the Anglican Church” (Treatise, p. 1). John McElhinney wrote: “The views of ministerial order so earnestly advocated by Bancroft in a sermon ad populum, were soon after defended in a learned treatise by Hadrian Saravia (Doctrine, p. 226).

Raymond Chapman maintained that “Andrewes and those who thought like him believed episcopacy to be divinely ordained” (Before the King’s, p. 5). Lancelot Andrewes wrote an essay entitled "A Summary View of the Government both of the Old and New Testament Whereby the Episcopal Government of Christ's Church Is Vindicated" (Library of Anglo-Catholic, VI, pp. 339-362; Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, pp. 339-362). Andrewes presented a chart defending Episcopal church government that presumed a correspondence between the following: Aaron--Christ, Eleazar--archbishop, princes of priests--bishop, priests--presbyters, princes of Levites--archdeacons, Levites--deacons, and nethinims--clerks and sexton (Ibid., p. 350). Andrewes seemed to have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession advocated by Bilson. Raymond Chapman wrote that Andrewes “asserted the validity of Anglican orders as being in the apostolic succession, with power to celebrate the sacraments, and to absolve from repented sins” (Before, p. 11).

Do KJV-only advocates agree with these views of their "superior" translators/interpreters and their overseer? Did these Episcopal views influence the translation of any verses in the KJV? Valid evidence affirms that they did.

 

I want to correct your inaccuracy here....while I actually posted the link, I did so because winman asked someone to do so. I did not research out the videos, nor would I have posted them...just as I would not post someone else's research on the topic copied from the internet as has been done here on this topic also.