"the Christ" in the KJV

You know, I hear you guys say that you only bring up the religion of the KJV translators whenever a KJVO brings up Westcott and Hort. Is it just me or do you seem to be stuck on it. Because we can talk about the MV translators and those who influenced the MVs if ya'll want to. I'll compare the resume's of the "baby-baptizers" with W&H any day. That's a battle you won't win.

Lacy

 

Who cares about the religion of the KJV translators? Some were good, godly Anglican men, others were mean spirited and involved in persecuting dissenters. But Christos still means 'Anointed one.' When was Christos anointed? what does that mean today, and why does the devil hate that word?

Dean

 

Preach it Brother Dean!!!

Lacy

 

I'll compare the resumes of the conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists that translated the NASB with of your "baby-baptizers" any day. That's a battle you won't win.

P.S.- I am also willing to compare the statement of faith that the NASB translators were required to assent to with the 39 Articles any day. That's another battle you won't win.

 

I was away for a few days and came back to find the NIV and New Age thread closed. Michelle said on page 3 of that thread that the NIV is "just one of the many bridges or tools that are being used to usher in a one world religion. . ." but this was NEVER proved by her or anyone else on that thread who may hold that view. The NIV is no more New Age than my booklet on how to work my coffeemaker.

In fact, I pointed out in that thread how I quoted from the KJV for the New Age articles that I wrote before I was a believer in Christ.

The term "The Christ" is actually not used in the New Age that much today (nor when I was in it) and it has nothing to do with the NIV or with any Bible. A term more commonly used is "Christ consciousness." When we New Agers talked about Jesus we said -- guess what -- "Jesus!" In fact, that was the more commonly used term amongst us.

Matthew Fox, Episcopalian priest and influential New Ager, in his book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, uses the terms "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," and "Christ." "The Cosmic Christ" is his own term and sometimes he uses that. There are some New Age writers who might say "The Christ" but that has nothing to do with the NIV or any Bible. The term "The Christ" is used in a way to de-emphasize the personal nature of Christ and you have to see it in context to get that. The term "the Christ" itself is not New Age on its own.

 

That is correct. Neither was "H" His middle initial.

Now let me take up another concern I
have about avid KJV-users. They are not
aware that now it is a sign of respect
to capatilize pronouns refering to
members of the Holy Trinity. Well, also,
some people haven't even learned about
capatilizing the first word in a sentence
already, but that is an ignorance issue.

Praise Iesus, the Sonne of God!

 

I'm not trying to win a battle and yes "it's just you" because I'm not stuck on "it".

What I am doing is pointing out error and I will continue to do so - Lord willing.

But you are correct in one implication; Error is error no matter who embraces it including Baptists.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
What I am doing is pointing out error and I will continue to do so - Lord willing.
--------------------------------------------------

And what exactly is this error you are pointing out? That those who Know and Believe and stand for the preserved pure words of God in our language are baby baptizers, because we believe the Lord chose to bring the English people in our language his words through them?

You are calling an assumption and error, to which that assumption has no basis, nor fact/evidence to back it up. Not only that, but you are comparing yet again, things that do not compare regarding this issue.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I am unaware of a single baby-baptizing Anglican priest that I know (I know a good number) who would even remotely claim to be "born again" in our basic evangelical definition.

All of them (my friends) would take the typical position of God's grace coming through the sacraments of the church.

How many Baptists or "dissenters" would have been in this group?
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, now instead of the ecclesiastical priesthood (as seen in the RC), now in this modern day, and for those naive enouph to believe this, and doubt God's promises, we now have a class of men of philosophical priesthood (to which is even more dangerous - tampering with the words of God, what they "think" God meant). Praise God I, and many others believe HIM jonly and not man.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
dr.Bob quoted:

believe in the priesthood of the believer. The believer should look at the Greek (can you imagine NOT teaching our church members basic Greek?) and see "christos" and be able to see that in English the BEST, the most ACCURATE translation is NOT a "transliteration" into a nebulous word like "christ", but rather ANNOINTED ONE.

I'm not trying to be a priest to any, nor are you, but am sure we should not rely on 1611 priests especially!!
--------------------------------------------------

This was rather the qoute I was referring to in my previous post.

Yes, now instead of the ecclesiastical priesthood (as seen in the RC), now in this modern day, and for those naive enouph to believe this, and doubt God's promises, we now have a class of men of philosophical priesthood (to which is even more dangerous - tampering with the words of God, what they "think" God meant). Praise God I, and many others believe HIM jonly and not man.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Or we have a priesthood of men who tell us that God only preserves His word in one version of 17th century English and we are supposed to accept that with NO scriptural evidence.

 

Michelle:

The KJV was translated by pedobaptists. Anyone who does translation will tend to introduce their own theology. That is exactly what they did with words such as baptism.

In the LXX the same word is used and never translated baptism. That same word was used in secular society and it meant dip, immerse, sank, or wash. So the KJV folks transliterated a word to skirt the real issue--false theology.

 

I wonder what the Christians did before English existed?

 

Natters:I know it's not New Age, I am just trying to understand how a KJVonly poster here (I think it was Michelle) said in another thread that the NIV was New Age for using "the Christ" - but the KJV does the same thing. It seems to me like she is arguing against her own position, and I was hoping she would explain this.

There's nothing wrong with saying "the Christ" when referring to Jesus, since Jesus is the ONLY real Christ. The source from which you read that it was a New Age term is part of the great KJVO double standard.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Or we have a priesthood of men who tell us that God only preserves His word in one version of 17th century English and we are supposed to accept that with NO scriptural evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry to burst your bubble, but God HAS SAID THIS in his words, not man. Within the scriptures and the very evidence of them in your own language, you find the scriptural support that you claim we do not have. You are the one doubting and have NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE to claim otherwise but Gen.3:1. To which you also ask (in your statements of what you believe) - yeah, hath God done?)

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV was translated by pedobaptists. Anyone who does translation will tend to introduce their own theology. That is exactly what they did with words such as baptism.

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

If you sincerely believe this, over and above that of what God has said concering his words, you are "up a creek" (as Lacy put it in another post- thanks Lacy, that was good!) and with no paddle.

Ephesians 4
14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16. From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
17. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19. Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20. But ye have not so learned Christ;

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savioiur,
michelle