What about the nature of version selections

Gee, would that be considered as the "spiritual gift" of a "prayer language"? Could Olde English be considered as a "tongue"? Hoo-boy, and look out, 'cause the KJVOs have done gone pentecostal!!!

Seriously, I have heard several who use the 'Thee's and 'Thou's in prayer. I guess it just sounds more spiritual to them. Most kids tug on Mom's skirt and ask, "Why is he talkin' so funny for?"

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Ken4JC:RC3 ? caution; '23 skiddoo' is a magical term used by Crowley and Masons.

Hmmm...I've heard it all my life & have never seen anything unusual occur when I've said it or heard it said. I guess the horse...er...force isn't with me.

Actually, the phrase means, "beat it, go away quickly", and 'skiddoo' is a shortening of 'skedaddle'. The "23" part comes from Charles Dickens'"A tale of Two Cities" in play form, where the hero, Sidney Carton, was the last of 23 victims to be guillotined, & the last line of the play is, "twenty-three!" The expression "23 skiddoo" was used by the police of NYC & other large cities in the same manner as "Beat it" is used now. Its use began in the 1890s & was continued through the 1920s.(My info comes from several dictionaries & encyclopediae.)

Any use of this term by "magicians" & Masons is purely coincidental.


I am looking up information about 'SDA-Benjamin Wilkinson' I did read your reply and questions.

Look for his book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated". It should be in your public library, and if not, it's available on many book-selling Web sites. I don't expect you or anyone else to read this book overnight, so if you don't reply to this point, I'll understand.

I don't reject the KJVO myth because of any dislike for the KJV; in fact, I enjoy reading the AV 1611 as both Scripture and literature. My rejection is based upon many hours of reading and studying many books and articles both for and against KJVO and then following up to check the veracity of the points each of them makes. In these studies, i have found that the KJVO side simply has no evidence to support its view. No Scripture. No historical fact. No nothing. It's purely an emotional doctrine, founded upon error, continued by opinion, guesswork, a great double standard, and outright dishonesty, especially by some authors who claim to be KJVO, but whose real purpose is to sell books.

God's word is far too important and serious to be trivialized just to "win" a debate with other men. KNOWING(not guessing) that KJVO is wrong, we thus attack it as we do every other false doctrine from our Christian duty to do so. However, I've found that the best way to get someone out of the pit of KJVOism is to let that person do the research for him/herself, since the KJVO is already "primed" not to believe us who fight the myth, to allow the KJVO to read UNBIASED material which proves KJVO to be wrong.

If you endeavor to undertake such research, may God assist you. You don't have to be a scholar to do it. Case in point: Myself. I'm a man of ordinary intelligence, having only a HS diploma & several tech school certificates, and am a steelworker by trade. If I can do it, I believe everyone else who reads this can do it also. It takes PATIENCE and a desire to know more about God's word, rather than any gift of erudition.

In Christ,

robycop3

 

--------------------------------------------------
To argue that He retired to a park bench in 1611 & ceased updating His word as the language changed is patently absurd.
--------------------------------------------------


It is just as absurd, if not moreso, to say that God retired around 200 A.D. to only keep his word collecting dust, and inactive for hundreds of years. Now, only in these modern days, has God revealed to us that those long standing verses of scripture, were not really God's word, and we are to NOW believe they were ADDED. You outright DENY THE POWER OF GOD by refusing to acknowledge that if God can suspend the earth and all the planets of the universe, for hundreds of years, that God can sustain the very air you breath, and your very life, then HE MOST ASSUREDLY CAN and DID and DOES have the power to preserve his very words for EVERY GENERATION as he has promised, even through fallible men. His words are pure, and his words are everlasting, and his words are those that man shall live by - and every single one of them. To believe God has only now made manscripts available that were never available prior to this age, and claim these are more reliable and trustworthy, than what the believing churches believed for hundreds of years, to which also contradict not only the long standing words of God, but among one another, and have caused nothing but division, confusion and strife to be of God, is to believe the lie. You all do hate the words of God, for you stand and condone those things that have altered them, and then have the audacity to claim they are God's words, and that God is doing a new thing. You are outright denying the promises of God, and then claim we believe by blind faith. If anyone is guilty of blind faith in this debate, it is all of you who would condone and stand for all those things that have or would alter the very words of God that we are to live by. YOu show your lack of faith in God's promises by your stand and comments, and without even realizing it, you attack God's preserved words in order to try to justify your belief - blind one at that. The EVIDENCE is right before your very eyes, but you all refuse to look at it by masking your eyes with the false label that you have attached to the truth, and believing the lies and wisdom of men, rather than and over above your love and fear for the word of the Lord. Most of you here rather enjoy arguing this issue, rather than discussing the issue, and reasoning with one another in love and genuine care and concern. You are on the "attack" mode and argumentative mode. You all have an attitude that: I am 100% correct in everything, and have "proven" with "facts" - nah,nah,nah, nah, nah. You might want to come down off your self-made pedestals, childish behaviours and humble yourselves, to really hear the facts regarding this issue, and ignore the assumptions, and for once, you might come to a better understanding of the truth and the evidence and the true facts regarding this issue.

Again, I ask you: WHERE IS YOUR FEAR OF THE LORD?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Let's step back several steps...

Here's one for Michelle and Ken - and this isn't a loaded question.

Since there is no discussion in the scriptures regarding "versions", where have we come up with the stance that one translation alone can be considered pure while all others are not? This is neither explicit nor implicit in scripture.


It seems to me (no offense intended) that KJBO, at least as far as SOME believers go, stems directly from a desire not to change that with which we are familiar and comfortable. The endpoint as such is already esatblished before the research is undertaken!

Thoughts?

 

It is just as absurd, if not moreso, to say that God retired around 200 A.D. to only keep his word collecting dust, and inactive for hundreds of years.

It is absurd. Fortunately, no one is saying that (except for KJV-onlyists who are falsely accusing others of saying it).

 

Charles,

This issue is not about which version or the name of the version is God's word. This issue is about the very words of God and how they have been altered in this modern day under the guise of updating the to the language of the day! In reality, what was done is not so much that, but relying upon a completely different underlying text and different methods of translation to which have evidenced an altering of God's preserved words from the text that the believing churches relied upon and trusted for generations.

THis is the reality and this is the truth. You all might do well to stick with this, rather than continually comparing apples to oranges in order to pat yourselves on the back for proving the truth wrong.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

Then you should have no probs with modern-day eclectic versions, in the light that the modern translators have many more mss available than did erasmus or the AV translators.
--------------------------------------------------

So if these many mss that were not available for hundreds of years, until this modern day, how then can this be the preserved words of God? How then can you justify that those mss that have omitted verses of scripture long believed and accepted within the churches to be reliable, accurate, and trustworthy, in light of God's promises/warnings? By the way, Erasmus had access to those manuscripts and REJECTED THEM - and rightly so.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, Erasmus was not a Christian, he was a Dutch humanist. Saying he rejected those mss. and that we should do so is like saying we should reject the physical bodily resurrection accounts of Jesus because the men on the Jesus Seminar reject them. Bad example.

 

Gene, you're absolutely correct.

If Erasmus were living today, and approached any KJVO-IFB church with a request to allow him to speak in the church (as a humanist-priest in the Roman Catholic Church), there's not a KJVO church that would let him within 500 yards of their pulpit (and rightly so).

But since he's now five centuries removed, and he figures so prominently in the development of the KJV: he's granted a historical free pass regarding his beliefs & theology. In the revisionist history that so frequently marks KJVO-ism, he's practically considered to be a 16th-century Dutch prototype of the modern IFB movement.

 

Puleeze! Erasmus was born and educated a Roman Catholic, but his sympathies lay with the fledging Protestants of the Reformation. He believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The fact that he is described as a "humanist" has nothing at all to do with the secular humanism of today, but merely meant he believed mankind of the 16th century could better his lot in life by education and a broader knowledge of the things of science and culture.

 

Puleeze! Erasmus was born and educated a Roman Catholic, but his sympathies lay with the fledging Protestants of the Reformation. He believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. The fact that he is described as a "humanist" has nothing at all to do with the secular humanism of today, but merely meant he believed mankind of the 16th century could better his lot in life by education and a broader knowledge of the things of science and culture. </font>[/QUOTE]Erasmus was a Pelagian. Pelagianism was deemed heretical long before the Protestant Reformation. Erasmus was not a Christian.Which is why Martin Luther opposed him vehemently and engaged him in a vehement debate. His sympathies lie with the Reformation only insofar as its movement toward individualism. I suggest you study church history a little more thoroughly.

 

OK, hypothetical question, but actually think it through: What if Erasmus was wrong in his choices?

Does anyone besides myself realize that a lot of this boils down to faith in the choices of a few manuscripts by a single man? A man who was not a born-again Christian (RCC is not Baptist, Methodist, whatever, it is WRONG). A man who did not even have access to all the available manuscripts of his day, much less all those which have been uncovered since.

And now we have people who scream and rant and rave that only one translation, in one language, is GOD'S WORD, and that any other translation is corrupt and perverted because it derives from sources other than those compiled by this single individual.

What happened to faith in what God said? Now we have faith in what this one man decided?

And, as to these "omitted verses" and "added words" of these 'strange and foreign manuscripts', I would ask this: How do we know that one is correct over the other? Were any of us there? Do we have eye-witness accounts of the handing down of the manuscripts? Do we have polygraph tests from the scribes testifying that they did not add anything to what they copied?

Food for thought: If the root is wrong, why would we think that the tree is not? And, yes, this can apply both ways.

So, how do we know? Outside of 'feelings', we can't. Yes, the KJV has a proven track record. But so does the use of a personal testimony. So does that make my testimony God's perfect word? The NIV has produced much fruit in its short lifespan, as have the ASV (just over a hundred years old), the SV, RSV, NASV, CEV, etc. So, how do we know?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Humanism today is man centered. It is atheistic and evolutionary. Man is seen to be in control of his own destiny and the humanist goals will be achieved through education, science, technology, mutual understanding, and international cooperation.

Renaissance humanists, on the other hand, saw their civilization after a thousand years of Roman Catholic repression. They sought to restore the glories of former civilizations through the revival of their lost cultures. Renaissance humanists were interested in classical literature, culture, and education as a means of lifting man out of the darkness of RCC enforced superstition.

As to his faith in Christ, let him be judged by his own words, not by the words of lying RCC historians:

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Humanism today is man centered. It is atheistic and evolutionary. Man is seen to be in control of his own destiny and the humanist goals will be achieved through education, science, technology, mutual understanding, and international cooperation.

Renaissance humanists, on the other hand, saw their civilization after a thousand years of Roman Catholic repression. They sought to restore the glories of former civilizations through the revival of their lost cultures. Renaissance humanists were interested in classical literature, culture, and education as a means of lifting man out of the darkness of RCC enforced superstition.

As to his faith in Christ, let him be judged by his own words, not by the words of lying RCC historians:

</font>[/QUOTE]Erasmus was a Pelagian. Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy. This isn't from RCC historians, it is from Presbyterian writers, James Montgomery Boice actually. Luther debated Erasmus over the freedom of the will. Erasmus believed in the will was free for the same reasons that Pelagius believed. Pelagianism was a heresy.

Regardless, how ironic that a Protestant would rely on a Catholic to defend their positions. If RCC historians lie, then how can Erasmus who was Catholic be accurate in his rejection of the manuscripts? Why is Erasmus correct? That has yet to be stated. Luther rejected Erasmus on the freedom of the will and this was accepted as theologically correct by ensuing synods, including the Anglican Communion, including the Synod of Dort, and then the writers of the Westminster Catechism. If Erasmus was wrong on that, just as Pelagius was wrong, then explain how he was correct in rejecting the mss in question. The point is, appealing to Erasmus is an appeal to authority, a fallacy of argumentation. In debate using the fallacies of argumentation loses you the debate ten out of ten times.

 

More accurately he was probably a semi-pelagian. Erasmus neither denied original sin nor did he believe a man could be saved by his own merit.

Yes. The RCC condemned Pelagianism in 416 AD. So what? If you condemn all pelagians and semi-pelagians to the depths of hell you will have to condemn most baptists too, and that includes many, if not most, who post on this forum.

You can't have it both ways. Either Erasmus was a Catholic or he was a heretic from Rome. Make up your mind.

Logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

I didn't say he was. I simply corrected your calling him a humanist and condemning him to hell on that account.

Now you have a problem. If the Lutherans, Anglicans, et al. were correct regarding soteriology, are they also correct regarding infant baptism? Are Lutherans correct in saying they are "born again in baptism?" If Erasmus was incorrect in some things does that necessitate him being incorrect in everything? And if so does the same standard apply to Lutherans and Anglicans?

Again, the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Except I have not appealed to Erasmus. I challenged your labeling him a humanist in the 21st century meaning of the word and by so doing consigning him to the pit of hell.

Then you have scored 0 in this discussion.

 

More accurately he was probably a semi-pelagian. Erasmus neither denied original sin nor did he believe a man could be saved by his own merit.

Yes. The RCC condemned Pelagianism in 416 AD. So what? If you condemn all pelagians and semi-pelagians to the depths of hell you will have to condemn most baptists too, and that includes many, if not most, who post on this forum.

You can't have it both ways. Either Erasmus was a Catholic or he was a heretic from Rome. Make up your mind.

Logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

I didn't say he was. I simply corrected your calling him a humanist and condemning him to hell on that account.

Now you have a problem. If the Lutherans, Anglicans, et al. were correct regarding soteriology, are they also correct regarding infant baptism? Are Lutherans correct in saying they are "born again in baptism?" If Erasmus was incorrect in some things does that necessitate him being incorrect in everything? And if so does the same standard apply to Lutherans and Anglicans?

Again, the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Except I have not appealed to Erasmus. I challenged your labeling him a humanist in the 21st century meaning of the word and by so doing consigning him to the pit of hell.

Then you have scored 0 in this discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, sir. My original post was to michelle, not you. She appeals to Erasmus. She is guilty of an appeal to authority. The point I'm trying to make and you are trying obfuscate is that if she and rest of the KJVO crowd condemn his Catholicism, which KJVO folks as a general rule do, then why bother accepting his scholarship regarding the New Testament? The argument is simply that Erasmus rejected certain manuscripts and he had good reason to do so. However, the assumption is simply that Erasmus was correct. That's it, no other explanation is given. Appeal to authority. You yourself called RCC historians liars. That's poisoning the well. "Roman Catholic historians are liars, therefore what comes from Roman Catholicism as history is a lie."

KJVO folks are beyond guilty of double standards.

Luther condemned Erasmus views on free will as Pelagian, not semi-Peligian. Only writers post the Synod of Dort and usually Arminians themselves will paint Erasmus as semi-Pelagian. Erasmus shared Pelagius views on free will and original sin, but, as Boyce says, he lacked Luther's spiritual ungirding in much of what he wrote. His forte was literature, not theology, and where he wrote theologically, he strongly favored Catholicism, opting only for the Reformers when it suited him because of his views on individual liberty. I'm merely pointing out to michelle and you that just because Erasmus was or was not a good translator that does not mean he was a good theologian or even a Christian and vice versa. The argument goes both ways. Just as you say, if Erasmus was incorrect, does that mean he was incorrect in everything. Upon what basis is his rejection of certain mss. valid? This has yet to be answered, only obfuscated. KJVO folks are beyond guilty of double standards for that reason. They demand reasons for our views, but then they give no real reasons for their own. We're left with no facts, just statements of fact without any real support.

One of them needs answer the question which has now been posed by both myself and another poster.

Furthermore, I never labeled him a humanist in the 21st century meaning of the term. Those were your words, not mine. I said multiple times that Erasmus favored the Reformers only insofar as their movement toward individual liberty. I NEVER said he was a secular humanist. You made a straw man of what I said.

[ May 18, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

I Chronicles 34:14-15 -- When they were bringing out the money which had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the LORD given by Moses. Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.

If those "many mss that were not available for hundreds of years how then can this be the preserved words of God?"

How then can you justify that those mss that have omitted verses of scripture long believed and accepted within the churches to be reliable, accurate, and trustworthy, in light of God's promises/warnings?

You're referring to the Apocrypha?

 

My reading comprehension skills are quite good. Are you always this arrogant and condescending toward others?

This is an open forum. I, as a registered user, don't need your permission to respond to false information posted by you or anyone else.

I did not mention that. My whole post was addressed only to the portion of your post which I quoted, and corrected.

I did not address that part of your post, which probably explains why I did not quote that part of your post.

You are still going well beyond the point of my post. Perhaps you should go back and read it again and put your response in the proper context.

Yes, I know, but that is no excuse for us to do the same.

Then how do you explain Erasmus' belief in original sin and his denial that man can merit salvation?

I have not raised any questions nor made any statements concerning Erasmus' abilities or lack thereof in the field of theology.

You still seem to be having a problem staying on point. I have not mentioned Erasmus' acceptance or rejection of manuscripts nor have I obfuscated anything. I simply pointed out the logical errors in your post.

Yes, I know, and when we do the same thing we are just as guilty as they are.

As you failed to qualify your terms, and assuming the readers of the board would understand your terminology as relevant to the 16th century rather than in its normal 21st century context, are you not as guilty as the KJV in using outmoded language which no longer has the same meaning as it did 400 years ago?

No, I corrected your straw man argument.