Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

[Alcott]

Originally posted by michelle:
The material you call "added" has been taught believed, lived, copied, memorized for centuries by believing christians. This is history.

Oh, you're a Catholic? OK

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
And the older mss, or copies of them, were used for over 800 years after the Revelation. They were used for some 500 years . . .

Although most on the forum knows my opinion of michelle and her abysmal ignorance of all things biblical and historical, I still have to challenge the veracity of your above statement. We know that Alexandrian readings exist in the major Codices, and that those readings predate the Codices because we have manuscript evidence for them (P75). But we cannot say that they were used for over 800 years. In fact, we have more evidence for the continuity of the Byzantine text over a much longer period of time as indicated by P90 which dates to the 2nd Century and reads virtually identically to the TR!

And you STILL are saying the older mss OMITTED some material! However you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to try to tell us HOW an OLDER ms could OMIT something found only in LATER mss, without providing us with a yet-older COMMON SOURCE from which BOTH were copied!

The variants contained in the Alexandrian manuscript tradition are less attested to than those found in the Byzantine manuscript tradition. And, the Byzantine readings date to as early or perhaps even earlier than the Alexandrian readings. We know that from looking at P90, and P98. We cannot dogmatically say either of them was the prototype of the later text types.

DOES IT? Seems that the LATER mss could well have material ADDED. Otherwise, why would they have MORE material than the OLDER mss?

It is generally agree that it is more common to inadvertently drop letters and words from a text being copied that add them. The causes of such inadvertent deletions are will known, being haplography, dittography, metathesis, homeoteleuton, kakiagraphy, and itacisms.

I believe it is just as wrong for an Anti-KJVO to use fallacious arguments as it is for a KJVO to use fallacious arguments.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Alcott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
The material you call "added" has been taught believed, lived, copied, memorized for centuries by believing christians. This is history.

Oh, you're a Catholic? OK </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't your mama ever tell you that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Either debate or be quiet. Your arrow-zinging is not edifying.

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Alcott, of course you are right on in recognizing the absolute parallel between the KJVo and Roman Catholic views on Scripture and tradition.

But on the BB, calling someone a "Catholic" has real negative connotation. Might as well call them a "Liberal" for their non-fundamental view of the doctrine of inspiration.

Them is fightin' words!

 

[Ed Edwards]

/Ed gets stuck on "wherewithall"/

The Holman Christian Standard Bible

Romans 14:19 (HCSB):

So then, we must pursue what promotes peace and what builds up one another.

Ah, got it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "My Bible tells me that God's words
are pure, refined 7 times,
and that he has promised to preserve them for EVERY GENERATION.

1. It is now the tradition of about 90% of the Christians
in the USofA to capitalize pronouns refering to any member
of the Holy Trinity. Request your compliance with this
tradition in order to show your respect for members of the
Holy Trinity. Thank you.

2. My Bible telles me that God's words are
AS silver refined 7 times. The AS denotes the use of
a similie. You know what a similie is, or do you?
The teaching of English is failing in the USofA so
most people have no idea what a similie or a metaphor are
all about. We will help you, if you need some restoration
of what you missed in school.

3. It is interesting how dogmatic you are about
your misunderstanding of Psalms 12:7. Try resolving
the pronoun - what is the referrant of "they" there?

 

[sdnesmith]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
/Ed gets stuck on "wherewithall"/

The Holman Christian Standard Bible

Romans 14:19 (HCSB):

So then, we must pursue what promotes peace and what builds up one another.

Ah, got it.

Ed,

Do you have a copy of the Holman Christian Standard Bible? What do you think? I picked up a copy of "Experiencing the Word Throught the Gospels" with notes by Henry Blackaby. So far it seems to me to be a typical modern translation. You know, denies the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.

Shawn

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
What English Bible was word-for-word correct before 1769? (or 1611 if you so choose)?

Do you believe there was a word-for-word correct Bible before 1769 (1611 if you so choose)? If you don't then why insist that I must?

Lacy [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Because you say there is one now. We don't.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

Please prove to us that God influenced ONLY the AV translators & none others in English.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

I never said God did. I have said and proclaimed the opposite of what you are misunderstanding. You are asking me to prove something I don't believe.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Ed quoted:

3. It is interesting how dogmatic you are about
your misunderstanding of Psalms 12:7. Try resolving
the pronoun - what is the referrant of "they" there?
--------------------------------------------------

Ed,

It is interesting to note that the Bible doesn't use the pronoun "they" in this verse. Here is what the Psalm reads:

KJV Psalm 12

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exhalted.

Please note, that God is promising to those oppressed by the wicked that he will keep them in safety from those who puff up themselves and who speak proud things, and then tells us we can trust God and his words, for his words are the truth. That his words, and his promises are true! The "them" being spoken of is refering to God's pure words, not the people. We find safety in God's words, and we defeat the enemy with God's pure words which are eternal and to which we are told are preserved forever. Jesus Christ gives us a wonderful example of this when he is tempted by satan.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I would also like to add more to the Psalm 12 to which most here claim we are twisting the meaning. Psalm 12 begins as a plea to the Lord by David, because the "faithful" were failing from the children of men because of the spoken vanities, flattering lips, and double hearted speaking. These things were causing these faithful to fail. Then we see that God has answered the plea, by stating that the Lord will "cut off" all "flattering lips" and those who speak "proud things" who deny the Lord. Then God says that he will bring those being affected by these things into safety. Then he tells us about his words, his pure words and that he would preserve them for every generation. How do you suppose God will cut off those wicked men? God tells us in this Psalm. By his pure words, to which God has brought his people into the safety of. This whole passage is concerning "things spoken" to which are words! The words of the wicked were causing faithful men to fail, because they were believing their words, and causing them to err. The Lord tells us that he brings them into safety, to which is his pure words that are eternal and that he will preserve for every generation. The whole context is concerning "words" those of the wicked, and those of God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


Oh, but we can know, and we (some of us) do know. You are implying the KJB manuscripts were altered. You have no proof of that.

But that isn't exactly what we claim.

"Altered" implies that it was intentional. I believe very few of the variants that exist are a result of someone intentionally changing the text. Most of them are a direct result of a simple truth- sinful, fallible human beings make mistakes.

BTW, The "KJB manuscripts" don't match word for word either.

We claim the Alexandrian family of manuscripts have been altered.

But you haven't proven your claims.

I happen to believe that the originals fall somewhere between the Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions. Like Skan pointed out, it has been my experience in dealing with Data Entry typists that they are more likely to omit something than add to it. Also, a more "difficult" reading suggests an error but one of the assumptions of modern textual criticism is that a more difficult reading is to be preferred.

It has been documented that they were.

It has been assumed that they were. Since we don't have the exemplar we can't truthfully say that one of them isn't a word on facsimile of the originals... although to make such a conjecture would be the logical/factual equivalent of saying that one English version is perfectly worded.

It has also been shown that the area in which they came, and the date of which they are from was highly apostate and gnostic.

There was no area around the Mediterranean during the first 200 years of Christianity where this would not have been true including Antioch.

The traditional text comes to us via the RCC and Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) churches. Both of them extremely apostate since at least around the 500 AD period. Every manuscript used by Erasmus (the KJB manuscripts) came from an apostate church. Erasmus was a scholar of an apostate church when he created the TR.

By your charges against MV's and the Alexandrian texts, you have established a standard that no Bible or text tradition can meet.

The history of the Recieved text has existed in all churches throughout the church age.

But therein lies your biggest problem. If you answer at all, please deal with this. None of the manuscripts in the "Received"/Byzantine/Majority text traditon matches any other word for word. In fact, there are significant variants within them.

Further, the older a Byzantine ms is the more it looks like the Alexandrian. This demonstrates a common source with imperfect copying by imperfect copyists.

The Alexandrian family of mss were stored away all those years collecting dust, and even during the time of the great reformation.

Maybe God was withholding them only to be revealed so that His Word could be put in its most pure form as we approach the end of the age. Assumptions like this one and the one you make about why these texts were suppressed are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove.

It is worth noting that the texts you oppose so contentiously were suppressed by the RCC. My personal belief is that this was intentional because they knew that they would undermine the Latin Vulgate Only position. The RCC taught that Latin was the language of heaven and that only the Vulgate was acceptable so any old Greek ms that disproved this notion was not going to see the light of day.

Further, the reformers, while doing a great work that we all should be thankful for, were still heavily influenced in both doctrine and practice by their RCC origins.

Considering this, and BELIEVING God's word and his promise that his words are pure,

You still haven't addressed this fundamental issue: The words of the KJV did not come directly from God. They were the translation choices of Anglican scholars.

and that he would preserve them for EVERY GENERATION, tells me, that those older dusty manuscripts were altered and not representative of the pure words of God,

Which single manuscript is Michelle? All of them differ so which one is the word for word facsimile of the autographs. It can't be the TR since it was collated from 6-10 mss that all had variants.

The Recieved Text streams from the bible believing, persecuted churches and believers.

This is simply untrue Michelle. It would be more accurate to say that it was produced by the Catholic churches that systematically suppressed true believers down through the centuries.

God's promise of preservation is the key to understanding this issue in the right perspective.

We accept His promise as it is. We reject your foundless interpretation of His promise as well as your efforts to put words into His mouth with regards to how He fulfilled His promise.

You either believe that God has kept his promise, or you don't.

We do. You don't. If you believe that either the TR or KJV is word for word perfect (God's words) then God did not keep His promise to anyone who lived before the 1500's.

It is up to one's own choice whether you desire to believe and have only the message of God, or whether you believe and have EVERY WORD OF GOD for your christian life. I believe that I have EVERY WORD of God,

I do too. The proper definition for 'word' in this instance is 'saying'. We don't have God's words. We have His Word, His Sayings, His Revelation, His Message.

If this were not true, we would be left with two erroneous possibilities. One, that God directly inspired the KJV translators. Two, that we do not have God's Word in any language since we don't know the exact wording of the autographs.

for it is written: MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.

Just mentally insert the correct definition for 'word' here and you might finally understand why you are wrong.

 

[gb93433]

Michelle;

Are you afraid if you read some books that disagree with your personal point of view that somehow you might be contaminated? If that is the case then you are very weak.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


The Lord is not doing a new thing in this generation. God does not change, and he has provided his words of truth completely. To believe that God suppressed his accurate words of truth is denying his promise of preservation. It is also denying the power of God. God created all things, to which also includes "languages". God also has foreknowledge, knowing that the gospel of Christ and every word of his, that he promised to preserve and to which are eternal, would see to it that every person in every language would have his very words available to them.

The problem of interpreting the plain meaning of word or words to that of sayings is stretching things mightily, in order to compromise your position regarding this important matter. Words are exactly what they are: words! A saying involves words to which God has said EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. God has also warned about those who would add to, or take away from his WORDS. Why warn against this if the words were not imporant?. Sayings can easily be altered by the choice of words or deletion/addition thereof. Words are what define the sayings or the message.

You also really should come out of the biased opionion of the RCC regarding the Received text. You claim the Received text was from apostate churches throughout the ages, and therefore imply that this text was altered with additions. If the recieved text was so catholic, as you would like people to believe, then why did the RCC find Erasmus a heretic? Why do we not see the affects of these apostate beliefs in the KJV? We can see the gnostic and liberal modernist affects on the MV's which is evident, although as subtle as it may seem to some. We do not find this in the KJV. You are also assuming that the Anglican church was Roman Catholic. Do you know why the people petitioned a new version? Then compare this, to the reason for the ERV. There is a vast difference. Compare the beliefs of those of Westcott and Hort to those of the KJV translators and King James? Oh, but maybe you prefer to listen to those that would lie about the person of King James? We are also talking about two completely different time periods, to which Westcott and Hort were also Anglican, and the church at this time had become extremely liberal from the generation of the KJV tranlsators. Another difference is the attitude and love for the word of God from the two. Westcott and Hort were men involved in the occult and secret societies during the time of their work of the greek new testament. These men also desired a Unitarian believer to be one of the men on the committee, who denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This belief is evident in the mv's as they have weakened this most fundamental doctrine. Where is the evidence that the KJV has been influenced by the RCC beliefs? Did you also realize the Carlo Martini who is a Catholic Biship is on the committee of the United Bibles Society? OH, what double standards you mv'ers like to hold, and claim all the while that we who defend the KJV are using double standards. It might do you well to listen to your common sense regarding this important issue, and stop excusing and approving of those things that have altered God's words of truth. It has become very apparent to me, that many here are not only denying the promises and power of God concerning his eternal words of truth, the lack of faith concerning this, but also that of disobediance to what God has commanded concerning separation. God is not an ice cream shop, offering a variety of flavors, for whatever one desires concerning his words of truth. The english language is the english language and it has not changed into a different language. It is still english. God does not cater to the slangs of the people, in order for them to understand what he has said and is saying. God is a just and holy and righteous God, and not some pansy up in heaven catering to the whims of men. I would like to see all of you, who approve of the mv's to give up the KJV, and rely only upon the mv's, disregarding all you have learned and read in the KJV so that you may understand better the dangers of the mv's therein. So that you may see, that without the leaning upon the KJV, you would not have the whole counsel of God. Go ahead. Try it. You can't though, because you know in your heart that it is the very words of God for the english speaking people and that the mv's have many holes therein.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Are you afraid if you read some books that disagree with your personal point of view that somehow you might be contaminated? If that is the case then you are very weak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gb,

Where have I said this? I never said this, nor do I believe this. Please, stop assuming things for this is causing you to falsely accuse.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Charles Meadows]

Michelle,

I'd agree with you on the catholic thing - I don't see the relationship. I would also agree that God will preserve His word. I think that God preserves the ESSENCE of His word - but that does not imply that any WORD FOR WORD translation, in any language, can claim to be exclusive. Now if Paul had written the KJB in English back in 60 AD I wouldn't be disagreeing with you - but the KJB didn't exist until the 1600s. Now we could posit (as KJBO authors do) that God preserved the Byzantine tradition manuscripts so that they could become the KJB - but again this is an argument - NOT a proven fact.

I'd also agree that lots of weirdness went on in Alexandria, from gnosticism to docetism and modal monarchianism - but this doesn't mean that there were not good Christians there. Again, this is a valid argument, but NOT a proven one.

I believe that God IS powerful and ABLE - so we have what He wants us to have. It seems however that He has seen fit to keep the originals from us - we have only translations.

I still say that one is free to dislike MVs. If the KJB blesses you then you DON'T NEED to defend that. On the other hand, those who venture into the version fray will have to be prepared to deal with the facts that they find - and the facts honestly do not support a KJB exclusive position. Not everyone involved with MV translation was of questionable character. Most were trying to render a GOOD translation. I'm afraid that many KJBO authors impugn them as "new agers" trying to corrupt the bible when in fact they were trying to do nothing of the sort.

Remember we don't need to be theologians to be saved (I still like being an amateur one though!) The plan of salvation is present in the MVs. As such I still argue that we have insufficient justification to brand MVs as impure or bad.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

Did you also realize the Carlo Martini who is a Catholic Biship is on the committee of the United Bibles Society? OH, what double standards you mv'ers like to hold, and claim all the while that we who defend the KJV are using double standards. It might do you well to listen to your common sense regarding this important issue, and stop excusing and approving of those things that have altered God's words of truth.


It has become very apparent to me, that many here are not only denying the promises and power of God concerning his eternal words of truth, the lack of faith concerning this, but also that of disobediance to what God has commanded concerning separation. God is not an ice cream shop, offering a variety of flavors, for whatever one desires concerning his words of truth. The english language is the english language and it has not changed into a different language. It is still english.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Just to prove a point: You misspelled English three times in the part I quoted written by you. You misspelled disobedience one and bishop once. That proves how mistakes can easily be made and how manuscripts can be corrupted very easily.

It sounds like you have not had many experiences with Bible believing Catholics. What if I told you that in the high school I graduated from the most outspoken young lady who gave out the gospel was a Catholic. What if I told you that not far from where I once lived was a Catholic priest who gave sermons and at the end of each sermon gave an invitation for people to know more about Christ and what it meant to receive Him? I think a lot of RCC doctrine is wrong. But there are men and women who do not believe all the RCC teaches and are trying to make changes from the inside.

If you were ever to look at translation committees and those who deal wit manuscripts you will find many non-Christians. Some are Jews. Just because they are not Christians does not mean they do not have integrity.

I deal with plenty of “believers” each week that make me be ashamed to be associated by the same name as they. They regularly cheat their customers. In fact some years ago I was fired by a man who called himself a Christian who was regularly cheating customers in the lumber business in Houston. He fired me because I wrote him a letter telling him that I would not cheat customers as I was aware that he was doing. Some of these are KJVO too. All of them will tell you they believe the Bible.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

The Lord is not doing a new thing in this generation. God does not change,

God was not doing a new thing in the early 1500's or 1611 either. You know when the TR and KJV were brand new creations. Not preservations of anything that came before but unique versions of the Bible that had never existed.

To believe that God suppressed his accurate words of truth is denying his promise of preservation.

So why do you persist in doing so? Before the printing press, all Bibles were different. As I mentioned before, the further back you go in the Byzantine tradition, the more it is like the Alexandrian text.

It is you that says these texts were unacceptable. It is your beliefs that would suggest that God failed to fulfill His promises to all Christians before 1500... when the "perfect" text was put together.

God also has foreknowledge, knowing that the gospel of Christ and every word of his, that he promised to preserve and to which are eternal, would see to it that every person in every language would have his very words available to them.

Yes. He did it before the TR and KJV and He is still doing it today. You are the one who wants to deny that God is providentially allowing scholars to accurately translate His Word today.

The problem of interpreting the plain meaning of word or words to that of sayings is stretching things mightily,

Only if you have incredibly weak diction and will not accept the example of scripture.

Galatians 5:14 says "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (KJV).

Which one of the "words" is being referred to Michelle?

word ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrd)
n.
A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.
Something said; an utterance, remark, or comment: May I say a word about that?
Computer Science. A set of bits constituting the smallest unit of addressable memory.
words Discourse or talk; speech: Actions speak louder than words.
words Music. The text of a vocal composition; lyrics.
An assurance or promise; sworn intention: She has kept her word.

A command or direction; an order: gave the word to retreat.
A verbal signal; a password or watchword.

News: Any word on your promotion? See Synonyms at news.
Rumor: Word has it they're divorcing.
words Hostile or angry remarks made back and forth.
Used euphemistically in combination with the initial letter of a term that is considered offensive or taboo or that one does not want to utter: “Although economists here will not call it a recession yet, the dreaded ‘R’ word is beginning to pop up in the media” (Francine S. Kiefer).
Word
See Logos.
The Scriptures; the Bible.

Here's the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=word

Note that of the 11 definitions given for "word" only the first one has to do with the definition you are trying to apply universally.

2, 7, 8, and 11 are the definition(s) I am using... and the appropriate ones to use concerning God's promised preservation of His Word.

in order to compromise your position regarding this important matter. Words are exactly what they are: words! A saying involves words to which God has said EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.

Just in case the above English explanation was not sufficient to show you your error. Here is what Strong's has to say about "logos" translated "word".

of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

Here's that link: http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3056&version=kjv

God has also warned about those who would add to, or take away from his WORDS. Why warn against this if the words were not imporant?.

He wasn't talking about the "units of speech" or else He would have had the originals preserved in stone or something. He was talking about what He said, His Sayings, not the words He used to communicate them.

Sayings can easily be altered by the choice of words or deletion/addition thereof. Words are what define the sayings or the message.

Exactly. But different words can be used to communicate the same saying. When you are talking about a group of sayings as lengthy as the Bible with redundant teaching on every doctrine then significantly different wording can be used to transmit the same meaning.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

You also really should come out of the biased opionion of the RCC regarding the Received text. You claim the Received text was from apostate churches throughout the ages, and therefore imply that this text was altered with additions.

I claim no such thing. I am simply proving that your "guilt by association" principle won't work if applied uniformly.

You claimed that the Alexandrian texts must be "altered" since they came from an area know for gnosticism and apostasy. I simply showed you that this same logic disqualifies the "Received" text if valid.

Let me be clear. Your contention is not valid in whether applied to the people (often monks and ascetics if I understand correctly) who copied the Byzantine manuscripts we have or the unknown scribes, probably converted Jews, that gave us the Alexandrian mss.

If the recieved text was so catholic, as you would like people to believe, then why did the RCC find Erasmus a heretic?

I will give you this then challenge you to do more research. Erasmus was never branded a heretic for producing his Greek text. He was an outcast because he openly wrote of abuses within the clergy. He outed them and so he was hated.

Why would Erasmus dedicate his text to Pope Leo if the RCC rejected his effort?

Why do we not see the affects of these apostate beliefs in the KJV? We can see the gnostic and liberal modernist affects on the MV's which is evident, although as subtle as it may seem to some. We do not find this in the KJV.

Actually that is a matter of whether you approach the Bible in faith or with skepticism. You and those like you are determined to misinterpret parts of MV's in order to make them look evil.

Qualifier: This is not what I believe I am simply showing you how the same thing can be done to the KJV.

In John 1:31 the KJV says "baptizing with water" while God's Word, the NASB says "baptizing in water". The KJV supports the Anglo-catholic heresy of sprinkling.

As I said, this is not what I believe but just an example of the type of non-sensical arguments used by you folks to try and make meaningful differences where there are none.

You are also assuming that the Anglican church was Roman Catholic. Do you know why the people petitioned a new version?

Yes. I do. Did you know that some of the translators favored a reunion with Rome? Did you know that the leader of the translation committee Bishop Andrewes taught that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice?

Compare the beliefs of those of Westcott and Hort to those of the KJV translators and King James?

To the extent that I have, W&H are probably more like us and certainly more forgiving of our beliefs than the translators were.

Oh, but maybe you prefer to listen to those that would lie about the person of King James?

No more than I want to listen to someone claim that a short term lesbian English style consultant caused the NIV to be weak on homosexuality.

We are also talking about two completely different time periods,

Yes we are. One was a period of religious freedom, 1800's. One was a period of religious persecution, 1600's.

to which Westcott and Hort were also Anglican, and the church at this time had become extremely liberal from the generation of the KJV tranlsators.

You didn't know that Anglican contemporaries of W & H contributed to "The Fundamentals" (the founding document of fundamentalism) did you? Betcha didn't.

It, like all other mainline denominations, were split at the time between liberals and fundamentalists. The liberals eventually won out in most of the mainline religions.

Westcott and Hort were men involved in the occult and secret societies during the time of their work of the greek new testament.

This stands less likelihood of being true than the contentions that KJ was a homosexual. You demanded fairness for KJ. Why not extend the same "Christian" courtesy to W&H? Why should your bias against their work determine whether you extend biblical chraity to them? Are you "believing all things" by giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Did you also realize the Carlo Martini who is a Catholic Biship is on the committee of the United Bibles Society? OH, what double standards you mv'ers like to hold, and claim all the while that we who defend the KJV are using double standards.

Did you realize that the only member of the TR committee was an RC?

No double standard on my part. I appreciate the scholarship of Erasmus and the UBS committee. I disagree with their theology. That doesn't mean they weren't first rate language scholars.

It might do you well to listen to your common sense regarding this important issue, and stop excusing and approving of those things that have altered God's words of truth.

I am listening to my common sense. Common sense tells me that if every piece of factual evidence works against a certain conclusion that no matter how much I might like that conclusion to be true- it must be rejected as false. Therefore, your beliefs on the KJV, not totally dissimilar from mine at one time, are incorrect.

 

[Charles Meadows]

" Why would Erasmus dedicate his text to Pope Leo if the RCC rejected his effort? ?"

Because he didn't want the pope to be upset since he beat the "official" catholic translation that the pope had sanctioned!!

It worked!... well, sort of!!