Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality

[Nehemiah6]

The history that I have read is that Erasmus did not have access to the Vatican library and was therefore unable to view the codex, so he could not have "rejected its readings".

Actually that is misleading.

DID ERASMUS HAVE ACCESS TO CODEX VATICANUS?
Simply put, yes. He had access to it through his correspondence with both Bombasius & Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Erasmus was supplied with a transcript of 1 John 4:1–3 and 1 John 5:7–11 from Codex Vaticanus by Bombasius. Through Sepulveda, Erasmus was provided with 365 readings of Codex Vaticanus. In Thomas Horne’s Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament which has been edited by Samuel Tregelles, we find the following on pg xv & xvi...

https://confessionalbibliology.com/2016/05/16/erasmian-myths-codex-vaticanus/

“For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle. ... The last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin ... (and) ‘appeared to Erasmus so old that it might have come from the apostolic age.’ He was aware of Vaticanus in the Vatican Library and had a friend by the name of Bombasius research that for him. He, however, rejected the characteristic variants of Vaticanus which distinguishes itself from the Received Text. (These variants are what would become the distinguishing characteristics of the critical text more than 350 years later.)” (Preserved Smith,Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, 1923). Erasmus was given 365 select readings from Vaticanus. “A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text” (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895; S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament; cited from Hills).

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/erasmus.htm

 

[tourist]

Humans wrote the original writings, God inspired them to write exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant. You have no problem accepting that, why is it that you wont accept that God inspired translators to write down exactly what he wanted written, inspired and inerrant?

Also what ever caused you to believe that God's word would see corruption? Where does this doctrine come from?

God certainly guides the translations and revisions otherwise very few would actually be able to read and study the Word of God.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The Catholic Church has been waging war against the word of God and true believers for centuries and no one on these KJV threads seem to know that.

Correct. That in itself would take several threads. But let's just quote from the Preface to the King James Bible (called "The Translators to the Reader") which shows us that the Catholic church was objecting to the KJV while their scholars were admitting that the Catholic translations were full of errors:

...But now the Latin Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine). Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy....

...Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition... Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills...

...And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so...

...If we should tell them [the Catholics] that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them... But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar [the Vulgate], by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work?... If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him...

... Nay, doth not [Pope] Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.?

...Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means....

 

[Whispered]

The history that I have read is that Erasmus did not have access to the Vatican library and was therefore unable to view the codex, so he could not have "rejected its readings".

Erasmus access to the library was through a friend.
Pertaining to Erasmus Greek New Testaments


"2. Erasmus knew about the variant readings that are known to modern textual critics.

a. As Frederick Nolan observed: “With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition [the Received Text], and the other with the Vatican manuscript [corresponding to the modern critical text]. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted" (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, London, 1815, pp. 413-15).

b. “For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle. ... The last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin ... (and) ‘appeared to Erasmus so old that it might have come from the apostolic age.’ He was aware of Vaticanus in the Vatican Library and had a friend by the name of Bombasius research that for him. He, however, rejected the characteristic variants of Vaticanus which distinguishes itself from the Received Text. (These variants are what would become the distinguishing characteristics of the critical text more than 350 years later.)” (Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, 1923). Erasmus was given 365 select readings from Vaticanus. “A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text” (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895; S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament; cited from Hills)."

c. Erasmus discussed these variants in his notes. “Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) (Edward Hills, pp. 198-199).

What About Erasmus?
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/erasmus.html

 

[fredoheaven]

This is yet another circular argument.

Umm... I know, you cannot discuss scripture and yet another circular argument. The difference I am presenting with yours is simply I used scripture to put in the line with my thinking while you are leaning from your own understanding. Perhaps a good verse for you.

Prov.3 Verses 5 to 6

1. 
   [5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
   [6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

 

[Dino246]

Umm... I know, you cannot discuss scripture and yet another circular argument. The difference I am presenting with yours is simply I used scripture to put in the line with my thinking while you are leaning from your own understanding. Perhaps a good verse for you.

Prov.3 Verses 5 to 6

1. 
   [5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
   [6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

This is an ad hominem attack instead of a reasonable argument.

Here's your previous post...

"Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as corrupt, all others say "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". I have no problem when KJV is sold in the market because it is not corrupt, the problem though is that those being sold in the market are corrupt."

You're making the assertion, without any additional evidence, that the KJV alone has the correct rendering of 'kapēleuontes'. Then you are using that assertion as the basis for an attack on other translations.

While that is not classic circular reasoning, it falls within the category. My criticism of your argument stands; yours of me is irrelevant.

I question your integrity.

 

[maxwel]

You're making the assertion, without any additional evidence, that the KJV alone has the correct rendering of 'kapēleuontes'. Then you are using that assertion as the basis for an attack on other translations.

While that is not classic circular reasoning, it falls within the category. My criticism of your argument stands; yours of me is irrelevant.

I question your integrity.

Actually... I think that is classic circular reasoning.

1. My translation is right
2. Other translations disagree.
3. I know those other translations are wrong because...
4. My translation is right.



I know you're just trying to be gentle.
Sorry I messed that up for you.

..

.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

And the unbelieving and naturalistic *scholars* and critics falsely claimed that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts were corrupted, while the corrupt handful of manuscripts which they promoted were *pure*! Thus they turned Scripture on its head.

Speaking of the Vatican, the most corrupt Bible codex is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)-- found in the pope's library, but a direct result of Gnostic corruptions. Yet this became of the foundation of all modern Bibles since 1881.

Erasmus was directed to this manuscript while preparing His Greek Text. But he rejected its readings. The few manuscripts which he used were quite representative of the traditional or Byzantine text of the New Testament. And the Textus Receptus (with appropriate corrections) was produced in the same lineage as that of Erasmus (while many editors were involved over a period of 100 years).

I would say there's a stronger case for Erasmus' text to be contaminated with Gnosticism.

But I can really only think of one point...in the bogus "long ending" of Mark, Jesus supposedly appeared in a "different form". This has been used by JWs and others to deny the bodily resurrection. Instead they think he experienced a "spirit resurrection".

Therefore, he only appeared in a body, something like a Christophany. In their view, he doesn't have a material body. This is similar to the Gnostic view which proclaims the creation to be evil by nature.

So, I could make a stronger case for Gnosticism in the Textus Receptus and KJV than modern translations.

 

[Nehemiah6]

But I can really only think of one point...in the bogus "long ending" of Mark, Jesus supposedly appeared in a "different form".

Obviously you have not researched the genuineness of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark. So your comments have little or no value. Take some time to properly study the matter, rather than believing the nonsense of modern critics.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

kapēleuontes, literally means; to make a trade of.
In context would be to make a trade of the Gospel, the implication in that context would be to make the Gospel into a business.
Another shining example of how the King James is overtly wrong and with an apparent agenda behind it.

 

[fredoheaven]

This is an ad hominem attack instead of a reasonable argument.

Here's your previous post...

"Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as corrupt, all others say "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". I have no problem when KJV is sold in the market because it is not corrupt, the problem though is that those being sold in the market are corrupt."

You're making the assertion, without any additional evidence, that the KJV alone has the correct rendering of 'kapēleuontes'. Then you are using that assertion as the basis for an attack on other translations.

While that is not classic circular reasoning, it falls within the category. My criticism of your argument stands; yours of me is irrelevant.

I question your integrity.

kapēleuontes, literally means; to make a trade of.
In context would be to make a trade of the Gospel, the implication in that context would be to make the Gospel into a business.
Another shining example of how the King James is overtly wrong and with an apparent agenda behind it.

In most instances, I used to cite scripture to support my view including citations from unbiased sources. According to you, all translation has its fault (circular reasoning).so it is assumed that in the text passage either most of the newer English versions are correct or the KJV is wrong or vice versa since almost all have the translated Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". Here’s the reason why KJV stands out amongst numerous newer English translation of the passage. I have also to point out the internal evidence or the contextual view where it was suggested the context had to do with trading the Gospel thereby making the gospel into a business without giving further evidence (classified as circular reasoning). Now, let’s see the factual evidence that surrounds the text in question and perhaps the best reason to conclude the KJV is superior to the newer English versions.
1.Words that are preached (vs. 12)
2 The word of God (vs. 17)
3. Words that are WRITTEN (3:1)
4. Words found in epistles (3:2-3)

“Nobody was selling anything. No one was “peddling” God’s words. They were corrupting them.” Paul said he has not even coveted man’s silver, or gold or apparel. Acts 20:23. He has not sold them for gain. Historically, at the first and second century Gnosticism abounds and so the corruption.in which Paul is warning about the “mishandling of the scriptures”. 2 Cor. 4:2
For an academic study of Gnosticism please you can refer to Wiki and others (see also below link) on the internet but to every student of manuscript evidence on this earth those are historical facts known.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

 

[Locoponydirtman]

In most instances, I used to cite scripture to support my view including citations from unbiased sources. According to you, all translation has its fault (circular reasoning).so it is assumed that in the text passage either most of the newer English versions are correct or the KJV is wrong or vice versa since almost all have the translated Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize". Here’s the reason why KJV stands out amongst numerous newer English translation of the passage. I have also to point out the internal evidence or the contextual view where it was suggested the context had to do with trading the Gospel thereby making the gospel into a business without giving further evidence (classified as circular reasoning). Now, let’s see the factual evidence that surrounds the text in question and perhaps the best reason to conclude the KJV is superior to the newer English versions.
1.Words that are preached (vs. 12)
2 The word of God (vs. 17)
3. Words that are WRITTEN (3:1)
4. Words found in epistles (3:2-3)

“Nobody was selling anything. No one was “peddling” God’s words. They were corrupting them.” Paul said he has not even coveted man’s silver, or gold or apparel. Acts 20:23. He has not sold them for gain. Historically, at the first and second century Gnosticism abounds and so the corruption.in which Paul is warning about the “mishandling of the scriptures”. 2 Cor. 4:2
For an academic study of Gnosticism please you can refer to Wiki and others (see also below link) on the internet but to every student of manuscript evidence on this earth those are historical facts known.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

A contortion, supported by conjecture. Sweet.
How do you come by the assertion that there weren't those out there doing just as many are doing today, send me a thousand bucks and get your miracle, and something very popular among Greeks pay me and I'll be your personal teacher, or even come to my class for x amount cash.
I guess you think biblical fraud is a new thing.

 

[Hevosmies]

The Catholic Church has been waging war against the word of God and true believers for centuries and no one on these KJV threads seem to know that.

If the Catholic Church would of "changed" the alexandrian text or done something to it, SURELY they would of gotten rid of the MANY verses that contradict their dogma? Like the verse saying in latter times some shall fall away from the faith and FORBID to marry. RING A BELL? Why wasnt that changed?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The Catholic Church has been waging war against the word of God and true believers for centuries and no one on these KJV threads seem to know that.

Which is part of the reason I don't like the king James version, because it's overt papistry.
You don't seem to understand that the Bible that was replaced by the KJV, (by force) is the Geneva Bible which is a Protestant Bible that actively in the margin notes pointed out the folly of the papists. James was a papist sympathizer, who would have converted except he had made himself head of the Presbyterian Church.

 

[KJV1611]

If the Catholic Church would of "changed" the alexandrian text or done something to it, SURELY they would of gotten rid of the MANY verses that contradict their dogma? Like the verse saying in latter times some shall fall away from the faith and FORBID to marry. RING A BELL? Why wasnt that changed?

Sorry but forbid to marry doesn't ring a bell, what do you mean by that?

 

[KJV1611]

Which is part of the reason I don't like the king James version, because it's overt papistry.
You don't seem to understand that the Bible that was replaced by the KJV, (by force) is the Geneva Bible which is a Protestant Bible that actively in the margin notes pointed out the folly of the papists. James was a papist sympathizer, who would have converted except he had made himself head of the Presbyterian Church.

Where is the KJV overtly papal? Do you mean using the word "bishop"?

 

[Hevosmies]

Sorry but forbid to marry doesn't ring a bell, what do you mean by that?

Catholic church dont allow their priests to marry. Matches perfectly with what the bible says will happen!

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Where is the KJV overtly papal? Do you mean using the word "bishop"?

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-catholicism-contributed-to-the-king-james-bible

 

[fredoheaven]

A contortion, supported by conjecture. Sweet.
How do you come by the assertion that there weren't those out there doing just as many are doing today, send me a thousand bucks and get your miracle, and something very popular among Greeks pay me and I'll be your personal teacher, or even come to my class for x amount cash.
I guess you think biblical fraud is a new thing.

With this kind of post proves nothing at all and where do you get the definition of "kapēleuontes, literally means; to make a trade of"? To some Platonic Gnostics? Could you figure me this out? Thanks

 

[Locoponydirtman]

With this kind of post proves nothing at all and where do you get the definition of "kapēleuontes, literally means; to make a trade of"? To some Platonic Gnostics? Could you figure me this out? Thanks

I looked it up, in Strong's, concordance, and several Greek dictionaries, and some Greek to english translators. After looking in many sources, I found that all of them agree as to the meaning of the word.
You provided no evidence only gave some weird kind of rhetoric and then made an absurd assertion, that no one was trying to profit from the Gospel, even though in the book of Acts Peter literally rebukes a man this very behavior, and through out the new testament there are many references to those that make merchandise of the Gospel.