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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#21
Unbelievable.. So you are declaring that Balaam did not believe in the LORD when He heard from the LORD and said what the LORD said to say...... You call him a pagan with absolutely NO biblical evidence to back such a false claim up... You say He did not believe in the LORD? How could he NOT believe in the LORD when the LORD spoke to Him? And you expect people to take your bashing of the KJV to be unauthorative because you alleged that some of the translators on it where homosexuals, when they where never confirmed as Homosexuals.. While you promote the NIV where a two of it's translators where confirmed as Homosexuals....

I personally have never used the argument that the NIV is faulty because some of the translators where sexual deviants.. I reject the NIV because it declares satan and Jesus to be the same..

First the KJV in Isaiah 14 and in Revelation 22 clearly give satan and Jesus different titles.. satan is the son of the morning and Jesus is the Morning Star..

KJV
Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

KJV
Revelation 22:16
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.



But the NIV declares both Jesus and satan to be the Morning star..
NIV
Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

NIV
Revelation 22:16

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

If people want to believe in a book that declares satan and Jesus to be the same person then so be it.. But i will never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God..
Balaam was a non-Israelite who led Israel to sin involving sexual immorality and idolatry (Rev 2:14). He doesn't sound like a true prophet of God to me. Additionally 2 Peter 2 places him in the context of the wicked angels. I suggest reading both passages.

Additionally, God used Caiaphas, a Christ-hating Jew, to prophesy concerning Jesus' substitutionary atonement, so, yes, God can use non-believers to prophesy (John 11:51).

Regarding Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew word used for "morning star" is validly translated "morning star".

h1966. הֵילֵל hêlêl; from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star: — lucifer.
AV (1) - Lucifer 1; Lucifer = "light-bearer"
shining one, morning star, Lucifer of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
(TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Lucifer means "light-bearer" in Latin. The morning star brings light, so the two are related, but since helel indicates morning-star, it is appropriate.

The word "Lucifer" came from the Latin Vulgate. Apparently the KJV translators preferred this word, however it is from the "wicked Roman Catholic Bible" in the minds of some KJVers :)

Here are some notes in regards to the related verses:

14:12–15 Although it has been common in Christian literature to see this passage as a description of the fall of Satan (cf. Luke 10:18; Rev 12:9), the passage itself argues for a continued reference to creaturely pride. However, Satan is a creature, and application of these descriptions to him is not inappropriate.

14:12 fallen from heaven. A Canaanite myth that speaks of one of the lesser gods attempting to sit on Baal’s throne may be the background for this stanza. morning star. The Hebrew is translated “Lucifer” in the Latin Vulgate, which was carried over into many early English translations. Jesus is the true Morning Star (Rev 22:16; cf. Num 24:17; 2 Pet 1:19). Isaiah 14:12

Obviously, modern translators are not claiming that Jesus is Satan, or that Satan is Jesus. This is more KJV rhetoric. Perhaps they simply wanted to be more precise than the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate rendering of the word. Since the Hebrew word means morning-star, that is what they used.

If you can prove that hêlêl does not mean morning-star in Hebrew, then you may have a point. If you can't prove that, then you have no case. It isn't the job of the translators to adhere to the Latin Vulgate.

By the way, if it was translated "light bringer" rather than Lucifer, which is the meaning of the word Lucifer, that would be objectionable because Christ was the light bringer in one sense..he was the true Light. So, if I was a Latin speaker, and called Jesus Lucifer, in one sense that would be true because Jesus is the true Light, and brought true light to humanity.

Personally I use the word Satan to talk about the evil one, because that is what he is....the adversary of mankind, God and believers.
 
Jul 2, 2011
15,786
2,771
113
#22
Our Father will use any Bible translation the attmpts to remain on board His teaching. It is the Holy Spirit Who affirms or denies any teaching as to its understanding.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#23
why would anyone want to identify themselves with 'any' of those ' S&G identities??? in the first place???
it would seem that they really don't have any 'connection' with Yeshua's H.S...
you tell me???
What is S&G entities? Not sure what you are talking about.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#24
By the way, if it was translated "light bringer" rather than Lucifer, which is the meaning of the word Lucifer, that would be objectionable because Christ was the light bringer in one sense..he was the true Light. So, if I was a Latin speaker, and called Jesus Lucifer, in one sense that would be true because Jesus is the true Light, and brought true light to humanity.

Personally I use the word Satan to talk about the evil one, because that is what he is....the adversary of mankind, God and believers.
Here are more notes concerning this verse..even the phrase "morning star" is not totally accurate. The reference is likely to Venus, which is the morning star.

14:12 a tn The Hebrew text has הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר (helel ben-shakhar, "Helel son of Shachar"), which is probably a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon. See HALOT 245 s.v. הֵילֵל.
sn What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called "the man" in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, "Isaiah," BKCOT, 1061). Isaiah 14:12

One might claim that the entire dialogue relates directly to Lucifer, but this is by no means certain although some of the language seems to indicate it.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
450
270
63
#25
Wow, what kind of thread did I stumble into :eek:

I haven't ever met or heard of anyone that has ever mentioned this, tis a first for me.


I like the KJV and find it useful for doing word studies with Strong's. It also challenges me mentally more than the other versions so to me it's like a way to sharpen my mind. It isn't the "only" version I use. I have a NASB that is starting to get some mileage and the TNIV I got when I was 14 fell apart. I wouldn't buy it again but I liked the binding and I feel pretty confident a believer that is being led by the Lord will gloss over most errors. The ones we get hung up on, it's always good to bounce it off others. Sometimes I think this is by design. We don't "have it" in and of ourselves...we need the body.

It's actually pretty fun, KJV is almost like reading in another language. I translate it in my mind without realizing it but when I read it out loud it sounds so clunky.


What gets really distracting in these newer versions is the footnotes. That tiny a,b,c,d,e I almost always went down to read it. So exhausting, usually does little to illuminate the text. Now I'm somewhat disciplined to keep reading but it is sooo hard.

It'd be nice to get straight text with just the books separated...I know the NIV has this but it sometimes feels like something is missing. That's why I jump around, and don't just focus on reading the word but walking with the word and seeing the word in others and sharpening my own understanding from others.

I've been hung up on one tiny phrase in the NASB and created a whole hour long tangent based off that one thing only to realize it's not in the KJV so I'm at an impasse personally.
 
Apr 15, 2017
1,989
304
83
#26
One of the common claims regarding the NIV translation is that it is contaminated because two participants in the translation were apparently gay.

These two participants are Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott.

I will leave it to you in regards to their specific roles, but Mollenkott was a contractor and she aided as an English stylist. My understanding is that when her lesbianism became public, she was not engaged anymore as a contractor.

Here's where double standards come into play, though.

The Greek New Testament used as the basis for the KJV was created primarily by Desiderius Erasmus.

It is a matter of record that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote letters to a young monk called Servetius Rogerus. These letters contained remarks that definitely sound like an attempt to initiate a romantic relationship.

I invite you to read the letters themselves to gauge this for yourselves.

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/e...-was-not-gay/the-servatius-letters/index.html

Additionally, King James VI and I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, engaged in similar suspicious relationships with other men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

Now, whether these men were involved in actual homosexual acts is a matter of dispute. Some will claim that the language of Erasmus, for example, was normal for men of that time. I don't think it was, and the quotes I have seen sound like an attempt to engage Servetius in an intimate relationship, which was rebuffed by him. I don't think these letters were written in the context of normal male companionship.

Regardless of whether they were or not, though, it is indisputable that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. This is interesting to me because frequently KJVists will express very anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.

Regarding the English royalty, historians are pretty confident homosexual relationships were being engaged in.

What is my point?

My point is this: KJV Onlyists employ argumentation toward the NIV participants that could be applied to the KJV participants. Do I think the KJV was a bad translation for its' time, and the limited manuscript evidence Erasmus had? NO. Erasmus was a humanist, which means, in essence, that he enjoyed working with original documents. I am confident that he did a great job with the information that he had (except for the Comma Johanneum, which I believe he succumbed to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church to include from the Latin Vulgate).

However, the KJV Onlyist is content to argue that the aforementioned individuals, Woudstra and Mollenkott, softened the NIV with regards to sexuality.

I am not the biggest fan of the NIV. Personally, I like the English Standard Version. However, I am able to see clearly that KJV Onlyist argumentation is faulty, because they are taking one standard, and applying it to the NIV, and failing to apply the same standard to the KJV. This is hypocritical.

Like I mentioned, I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version). The NASB is fine, and so is the NKJV. All are in contemporary English. I like the NIV as a cross-reference, and my favorite study Bible is only available in NIV (Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible).

However, I'm not a big fan of the KJV. This is mostly due to the language and the NT textual basis, but if I wanted to sound like a KJV Onlyist, I could claim that I don't like it because the underlying Greek text was compiled primarily by a gay Roman Catholic priest, and it was commissioned by a gay English king.

But, I know God works through flawed people (that's the only kind there are).
Does the translations claim the God of Israel, a personal God that will judge all people, and all people are accountable to Him, and are to obey His commandments that He set forth for people.

And Jesus is Lord and Savior, and God manifest in the flesh.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and only a sinless man can reconcile the world unto God, but no man is sinless so God manifest Himself in flesh and reconciled the world unto Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, God and man in harmony.

And to be led of the Holy Spirit abstaining from sin, and acting like Christ, which love is the fulfilling of the law.

If a translation claims these things then it would seem like all things should fall in to place, for they not denying these truths, and not afraid to claim them.

I am not knocking any of the other translations, or a KJV only person, but I read the KJV and do not have a problem with it, and it does not need to be in plainer English for me, and read through it, and it is the same theme all the way through.

No person says Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

No person comes to the Son unless the Father draws them.

And person that claims Jesus is come in flesh is of God.

Peter said Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and Jesus said flesh and blood did not reveal that to Him but the Father.

Concerning the end time and the world will rebel against God all people who do not love Him, none of the wicked shall understand and follow the world, and the beast, but the wise shall understand.

I read the KJV and claim all these things, and understand the end time quite well, and will not follow the world when they say Peace and safety, and I read the KJV, and all these things are in the KJV.

But I am pretty sure that the NIV, ESV, and NASB, so the same.

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon acknowledged the God of Israel as the greatest of all gods, and proclaimed throughout his kingdom that if anybody says anything against Him they shall be cut in pieces, and their house made a dunghill.

And because of the Babylon was referred to as gold the best Gentile kingdom, and rode on eagle's wings had the revelation of God, and God causing his kingdom to flourish.

But his son blew it, and the kingdom was given to the Medes and Persians.

So if God wants to get his word out to the people, and the heathen such as Babylon have a great influence upon many people God can use that kingdom to reach out to them as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar.

Which all the kingdoms had the revelation of God.

Egypt did. Assyria did. Babylon did. Medo-Persia did. Greece did. The Roman Empire did.

America like Babylon will blow it too like they did, and the new age movement interprets the Bible according to the occult, and nature worship, and evolution, and believe people can still evolve to be greater and spiritual, and Jesus is not Lord and Savior, but a good teacher, and love, and evolved to be an ascended master and avatar, and do not acknowledge a personal God, but honor the God of forces, or the power of nature as their higher power, the evolutionary process.

And the new age movement is the future for this world, and will pave the way to the New Age Christ where the world will rebel against God, and all nations will come together as one and try to establish peace on earth, and the new age movement a unified religious system where evolution is religion.

America is really an occult nation that allows Christianity, and all religions to be practiced there including Satanism, the occult, and the new age movement, but God uses her to get the Gospel, and the truth out there to those in the nation that know the truth because of the liberty to be able to believe Christianity, and practice it.

For now that is, for in the future it will not be so for her occult side will take the forefront in the open when the nations come together, and evolution is the name of the game.

Why do you think they took prayer out of school, and taught evolution.
 
Nov 17, 2015
2,338
377
83
#28
So, just to summarize, I could have a level of respect for someone like Hills assuming he didn't show a degree of contempt for those who prefer the modern versions. In essence, most of the issues regarding the Textus Receptus relate to additions to the inspired text, from my viewpoint. It's more like having a box of puzzle pieces, with some additional pieces not belong to the puzzle, rather than having missing pieces.

The only section that I highly disagree with is Mark 16:9-20 because it has been used to promote baptismal regeneration, a denial of the bodily resurrection (the "different form" remark), and strange claims by some charismatics/Pentecostals involving drinking poison and handling snakes.

As for the KJV, the language is simply too archaic and lends to confusion and wrong teachings. How many new Christians would know that 'fetch a compass" means to "go around", and that "conversation" in KJV-ese means "citizenship"?
This simply means you cannot engage others about Baptismal regeneration when the fact is that Mark 16 can thwart Baptismal regeneration teaching. By the way, archaism holds true to all translation. Perhaps your lack of study about the context fails you to understand the word. Archaic words are to be retained and need to be studied.
 
Sep 7, 2019
113
68
28
#29
One of the common claims regarding the NIV translation is that it is contaminated because two participants in the translation were apparently gay.

These two participants are Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott.

I will leave it to you in regards to their specific roles, but Mollenkott was a contractor and she aided as an English stylist. My understanding is that when her lesbianism became public, she was not engaged anymore as a contractor.

Here's where double standards come into play, though.

The Greek New Testament used as the basis for the KJV was created primarily by Desiderius Erasmus.

It is a matter of record that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote letters to a young monk called Servetius Rogerus. These letters contained remarks that definitely sound like an attempt to initiate a romantic relationship.

I invite you to read the letters themselves to gauge this for yourselves.

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/e...-was-not-gay/the-servatius-letters/index.html

Additionally, King James VI and I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, engaged in similar suspicious relationships with other men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

Now, whether these men were involved in actual homosexual acts is a matter of dispute. Some will claim that the language of Erasmus, for example, was normal for men of that time. I don't think it was, and the quotes I have seen sound like an attempt to engage Servetius in an intimate relationship, which was rebuffed by him. I don't think these letters were written in the context of normal male companionship.

Regardless of whether they were or not, though, it is indisputable that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. This is interesting to me because frequently KJVists will express very anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.

Regarding the English royalty, historians are pretty confident homosexual relationships were being engaged in.

What is my point?

My point is this: KJV Onlyists employ argumentation toward the NIV participants that could be applied to the KJV participants. Do I think the KJV was a bad translation for its' time, and the limited manuscript evidence Erasmus had? NO. Erasmus was a humanist, which means, in essence, that he enjoyed working with original documents. I am confident that he did a great job with the information that he had (except for the Comma Johanneum, which I believe he succumbed to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church to include from the Latin Vulgate).

However, the KJV Onlyist is content to argue that the aforementioned individuals, Woudstra and Mollenkott, softened the NIV with regards to sexuality.

I am not the biggest fan of the NIV. Personally, I like the English Standard Version. However, I am able to see clearly that KJV Onlyist argumentation is faulty, because they are taking one standard, and applying it to the NIV, and failing to apply the same standard to the KJV. This is hypocritical.

Like I mentioned, I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version). The NASB is fine, and so is the NKJV. All are in contemporary English. I like the NIV as a cross-reference, and my favorite study Bible is only available in NIV (Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible).

However, I'm not a big fan of the KJV. This is mostly due to the language and the NT textual basis, but if I wanted to sound like a KJV Onlyist, I could claim that I don't like it because the underlying Greek text was compiled primarily by a gay Roman Catholic priest, and it was commissioned by a gay English king.

But, I know God works through flawed people (that's the only kind there are).
Hi UWC, its Hey Jude here.

I cannot answer all of that, as I have not read about the people you say of. But I do know that there is much doubt over painting King James the man wrongly, (they would do that wouldn't they if they wanted to smear someone ). Dig a bit deeper on that is my advice as it depends on who you listen to.

People often discredit others to smear them or accuse them of something so that their truth is put into question (even Jesus was accused of things that were not true). You have free will and are given the choice to believe what you want to believe.

I just think God wouldn't leave people for nearly 400 years in the dark without the right Word of God and the 1611 KJV was all that was available for a long time.

If God uses a donkey to talk then he can make anyone talk. Should we not believe the donkey then just because it came from a donkey? I guess God will use whomever he will!

Reminds me also of the story of Nasruddin in a Persian Tale.
(The uncommon sense of Nasruddin).

Faruk, the neighbour of Nasruddin came to ask him if he could borrow his donkey.
Nasruddin said, sorry the donkey has just been sold at the market, so no.

No sooner had Nasruddin spoken, the donkey started braying out of his stable.

Faruk says, "Nasruddin, why do you tell me your donkey went to market when I can clearly hear him braying?"

Nasruddin says "who are you going to believe, me or the donkey?"
 
Sep 7, 2019
113
68
28
#30
Unbelievable.. So you are declaring that Balaam did not believe in the LORD when He heard from the LORD and said what the LORD said to say...... You call him a pagan with absolutely NO biblical evidence to back such a false claim up... You say He did not believe in the LORD? How could he NOT believe in the LORD when the LORD spoke to Him? And you expect people to take your bashing of the KJV to be unauthorative because you alleged that some of the translators on it where homosexuals, when they where never confirmed as Homosexuals.. While you promote the NIV where a two of it's translators where confirmed as Homosexuals....

I personally have never used the argument that the NIV is faulty because some of the translators where sexual deviants.. I reject the NIV because it declares satan and Jesus to be the same..

First the KJV in Isaiah 14 and in Revelation 22 clearly give satan and Jesus different titles.. satan is the son of the morning and Jesus is the Morning Star..

KJV
Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

KJV
Revelation 22:16
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.



But the NIV declares both Jesus and satan to be the Morning star..
NIV
Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

NIV
Revelation 22:16

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

If people want to believe in a book that declares satan and Jesus to be the same person then so be it.. But i will never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God..
I agree with Adstar on that.

Some might even say these same verses have been corrupted on purpose to mislead as it is not the only example of it. And in the first instance, what discredits the book is declaring Satan as Jesus. not the other reasons given in the second instance on lifestyle choices of the translators. The first instance should set off alarm bells, not the second.

So I would never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God either.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#31
The OP started to be a weak argument on character assassination.
No, I was pointing out the fact that KJVist propaganda is inconsistent.

This propaganda seeks to use ad hominem arguments against the NIV and modern translations, but fails to apply the same measures to the KJV.

I simply pointed out how similar claims could apply to participants in the creation of the KJV.

Why are you uncomfortable with that?

Are you uncomfortable when Anderson, Gump, Riplinger, Hovind, Anderson, and Ruckman use these types of arguments?
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#32
I agree with Adstar on that.

Some might even say these same verses have been corrupted on purpose to mislead as it is not the only example of it. And in the first instance, what discredits the book is declaring Satan as Jesus. not the other reasons given in the second instance on lifestyle choices of the translators. The first instance should set off alarm bells, not the second.

So I would never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God either.
No one claims Jesus is Satan, or Satan is Jesus.

It's not even certain the verses in Isaiah are talking about Satan. Additionally, can you prove that Lucifer is the proper translation for the underlying Hebrew:

הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר (helel ben-shakhar, "Helel son of Shachar")
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#33
Hi UWC, its Hey Jude here.

I cannot answer all of that, as I have not read about the people you say of. But I do know that there is much doubt over painting King James the man wrongly, (they would do that wouldn't they if they wanted to smear someone ). Dig a bit deeper on that is my advice as it depends on who you listen to.

People often discredit others to smear them or accuse them of something so that their truth is put into question (even Jesus was accused of things that were not true). You have free will and are given the choice to believe what you want to believe.

I just think God wouldn't leave people for nearly 400 years in the dark without the right Word of God and the 1611 KJV was all that was available for a long time.

If God uses a donkey to talk then he can make anyone talk. Should we not believe the donkey then just because it came from a donkey? I guess God will use whomever he will!

Reminds me also of the story of Nasruddin in a Persian Tale.
(The uncommon sense of Nasruddin).

Faruk, the neighbour of Nasruddin came to ask him if he could borrow his donkey.
Nasruddin said, sorry the donkey has just been sold at the market, so no.

No sooner had Nasruddin spoken, the donkey started braying out of his stable.

Faruk says, "Nasruddin, why do you tell me your donkey went to market when I can clearly hear him braying?"

Nasruddin says "who are you going to believe, me or the donkey?"
One, no one claims that God left people 400 years in the dark without the right word of God.

Two, if one is a strict KJVist, they believe the English people (if not the entire world) was without the right word of God for 1600 years until King James came along. However, there were other versions of the Bible, including the Tyndale that the KJV translators used heavily in the creation of the KJV (by the way it is a myth that the KJV was a fresh translation from the Greek and Hebrew..in fact they relied heavily on the Tyndale text and copied it in many places)

Three, the "right word of God" is the originals, not the Greek New Testaments that either Erasmus or Nestle-Aland created. We don't have those anymore, so we must rely on manuscript evidence.

Four, my major point is this: a prominent part of the KJV Only movement uses ad-hominem attacks concerning the participants in the process of creating the NIV. If the same standards are applied to the KJV translators and the King who footed the expenses, if they are consistent, they would have issues with the KJV.

Using their reasoning, the consistent thinker has every reason to be concerned about a translation that involved Erasmus' text, since he definitely was Roman Catholic, and very well could have been gay due to the romantic letters he exchanged with the monk (by the way, the monk rejected his advances). Additionally, the KJV was commissioned by a king that was likely gay.

And, of course, I believe God can use anyone. Remember it was me that brought up Balaam :)

My point relates to the hypocrisy of some sizeable number of KJVists in regards to their argumentation. Apply their own reasoning to themselves, and their hypocrisy is brought to light.

I don't care if someone uses the KJV or not if they are willing to look up all the words and translate the archaic English, at the same time realizing they will have some misunderstandings as word meanings have changed.

All in all, I find it amusing to listen to the rhetoric of some KJVers, because their logic is obviously fallacious yet they refuse to acknowledge it.

And, as I mentioned above, I do not deny that there are a few scholars who are not engaged in this sort of rhetoric. I can respect them while disagreeing with them. I think it's very few, though, and many are engaged in fallacious argumentation.
 
Jul 3, 2015
26,768
5,299
113
#34
What is S&G entities? Not sure what you are talking about.
I assume S&G identities/entities to be a reference to Sodom and Gommorah, which many others in turn seemingly automatically solely associate with the sin homosexuality, as opposed to being largely regarding their lacking in kindness and mercy.
Wow, what kind of thread did I stumble into :eek:
I wondered the same thing :giggle:
Unbelievable.. So you are declaring that Balaam did not believe in the LORD when He heard from the LORD and said what the LORD said to say...... You call him a pagan with absolutely NO biblical evidence to back such a false claim up... You say He did not believe in the LORD? How could he NOT believe in the LORD when the LORD spoke to Him?
I agree with Adstar on that.
The first words recorded of Balaam's in Scripture were, “Spend the night here,” Balaam said to them, “and I will report back to you with the answer the Lord gives me.” Balaam spoke on behalf of God to the elders of Moab and Midian :) It is an interesting story in the history of Israel, found in Numbers chapters 22-24 :D
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#35
I agree with Adstar on that.

Some might even say these same verses have been corrupted on purpose to mislead as it is not the only example of it. And in the first instance, what discredits the book is declaring Satan as Jesus. not the other reasons given in the second instance on lifestyle choices of the translators. The first instance should set off alarm bells, not the second.

So I would never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God either.
You agree with him on what?

You believe that Balaam was a real prophet of God, even though his name is non-Israelite, and he led Israel into sin? I can't imagine a real prophet wanting to curse Israel so he could pick up a few bucks, and informing the enemies of God how to sabotage Israel by enticing them to sin.

Maybe you're just talking about his preference for Lucifer over morning-star. I believe the translators were simply trying to render the underlying Greek correctly. Lucifer comes from the Latin Vulgate, and modern translators felt no obligation to bring over this translation into an English Bible primarily used by evangelicals.

Sounds to me like they could have used "Venus" but that wouldn't satisfy KJVers either so it doesn't matter.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#36
I assume S&G identities/entities to be a reference to Sodom and Gommorah, which many others in turn seemingly automatically solely associate with the sin homosexuality, as opposed to being largely regarding their lacking in kindness and mercy.
I wondered the same thing :giggle:


The first words recorded of Balaam's in Scripture were, “Spend the night here,” Balaam said to them, “and I will report back to you with the answer the Lord gives me.” Balaam spoke on behalf of God to the elders of Moab and Midian :) It is an interesting story in the history of Israel, found in Numbers chapters 22-24 :D
I don't consider him to be a true prophet of God, due to his non-Israelite name and the fact that he led Israel into the sins of sexual immorality and idolatry.

However, I realize God used him in some sense, just as Caiaphas was used to proclaim the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.

It could be that he is like the health, wealth, and prosperity preachers on TV...claiming allegiance with God but in reality a false teacher.

There are some curious remarks in the account, though.
 
Sep 7, 2019
113
68
28
#37
You agree with him on what?

You believe that Balaam was a real prophet of God, even though his name is non-Israelite, and he led Israel into sin? I can't imagine a real prophet wanting to curse Israel so he could pick up a few bucks, and informing the enemies of God how to sabotage Israel by enticing them to sin.

Maybe you're just talking about his preference for Lucifer over morning-star. I believe the translators were simply trying to render the underlying Greek correctly. Lucifer comes from the Latin Vulgate, and modern translators felt no obligation to bring over this translation into an English Bible primarily used by evangelicals.

Sounds to me like they could have used "Venus" but that wouldn't satisfy KJVers either so it doesn't matter.
No I didn't say that. I was talking about different translations or interpretations of the bibles. There are a thousand reasons why I use the KJV and no other. The only mention of Baalam I used was his talking donkey and I never mention Baalam at all. My Point was if God chooses to use a donkey it might have been as it was the only mouth available. I haven't made any opinion other than that on this post (too much of a bun fight for me...)
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#38
This simply means you cannot engage others about Baptismal regeneration when the fact is that Mark 16 can thwart Baptismal regeneration teaching. By the way, archaism holds true to all translation. Perhaps your lack of study about the context fails you to understand the word. Archaic words are to be retained and need to be studied.
I've already discussed this on other threads.

Even if Mark 16:9-20 is canonical (and I am convicted that it is not), it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.

However, it can be effectively used to teach the denial of the bodily resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses use the "different form" phrase to do this.

Additionally, it has been used to promote charismatic excesses, including drinking poison and snake handling, even though several within their ranks have been maimed or killed as a result of their "faith" in this regard.

By the way, I understand they refrigerate the poisonous snakes prior to handling them to make them sluggish..guess they don't have THAT much faith :D

In fact, I think charismatics are more likely to be KJV Only because it emphasizes their doctrines.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#39
No I didn't say that. I was talking about different translations or interpretations of the bibles. There are a thousand reasons why I use the KJV and no other. The only mention of Baalam I used was his talking donkey and I never mention Baalam at all. My Point was if God chooses to use a donkey it might have been as it was the only mouth available. I haven't made any opinion other than that on this post (too much of a bun fight for me...)
OK..well I can respect that. I'm just pointing out their inconsistent reasoning. I don't care if someone uses the KJV if they want to learn the archaic English. It's just another layer of translation to me.

I don't think the Greek text underlying it is quite right, but other than the long ending of Mark 16, I don't really care. It's also impossible to defend the Trinity with Muslims due to the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum.
 
Aug 12, 2019
565
299
63
#40
why would anyone want to identify themselves with 'any' of those ' S&G identities??? in the first place???
it would seem that they really don't have any 'connection' with Yeshua's H.S...
you tell me???
Which ones are you talking about?

Erasmus and King James, or Woudstra and Mollenkutt?

All are actual or suspected homosexuals.