Don't worry UWC,I am not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone on whether Balaam was a real prophet of God or not as I haven't even read all this thread or taken part in that conversation, but God can use whom he will and has before. I also think all this stuff about different translations of meanings of words is always strange, as Jesus words were plain and simple. No one really misunderstood anything he said. He spoke words that even a child could understand....strange that isn't it?
Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
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.
The thing is I don't think it is supposed to be anything other than a punishment to hear stammering lips in this case. Is this what you mean?
This verse is to be understood as a response to what the complaining and dissatisfied people had said, as expressed in the previous verse. God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God.
This verse is to be understood as a response to what the complaining and dissatisfied people had said, as expressed in the previous verse. God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God.
-
3
- Show all
Wow, you are one of those hate filled Andersonites huh? Have you ever heard Jeff tell what that thumb ring is on for? You should research it a bit before coming here to slander two men suggesting they might be homosexual. Then in the next comment down you really go off calling others hypocrite, liar, and then end with-
as if you are not doing the same thing in the very same comment you're accusing him of.....hypocritically! Really, even your accusation of his hypocrisy is in fact hypocritical!! Like
?????
Come on man, when a position demands you act this way you may want to step back and take a look at the fruit coming from your branches "Anderson/Westboro type Methods", they hurt the body of Christ and bring shame to His awesome name. I can't see Jesus name being glorified at all by these methods because they are absent love. How longsuffering is our God? You know. And there are people that think they are getting angry for God? I just don't get it, we are commanded to proclaim His word, He told us to proclaim His good news in love, not in condemnation as I see here.
I want to really make a point to say that I do not think everything he says is wrong, and even think he says a LOT right, but there is leaven in his loaf, and it is apparent when reading comments like yours. I am only saying these things because I believe you're in error man. Take a look at this comment from you.
Really? Let's say you're completely right, how on earth does this help your brother to see the truth? If he is in error you just built the wall taller. Why wouldn't you take a more effective approach? You don't have to compromise a letter of what you're saying, and say it in a way that will be received better. If they won't receive it then it just justifies God more on their day of judgement when He say's "I sent them here". I'm not trying to argue or even start a fight here, but you should seriously check you behavior here, to represent our King better.
as if you are not doing the same thing in the very same comment you're accusing him of.....hypocritically! Really, even your accusation of his hypocrisy is in fact hypocritical!! Like
?????Come on man, when a position demands you act this way you may want to step back and take a look at the fruit coming from your branches "Anderson/Westboro type Methods", they hurt the body of Christ and bring shame to His awesome name. I can't see Jesus name being glorified at all by these methods because they are absent love. How longsuffering is our God? You know. And there are people that think they are getting angry for God? I just don't get it, we are commanded to proclaim His word, He told us to proclaim His good news in love, not in condemnation as I see here.
I want to really make a point to say that I do not think everything he says is wrong, and even think he says a LOT right, but there is leaven in his loaf, and it is apparent when reading comments like yours. I am only saying these things because I believe you're in error man. Take a look at this comment from you.
Really? Let's say you're completely right, how on earth does this help your brother to see the truth? If he is in error you just built the wall taller. Why wouldn't you take a more effective approach? You don't have to compromise a letter of what you're saying, and say it in a way that will be received better. If they won't receive it then it just justifies God more on their day of judgement when He say's "I sent them here". I'm not trying to argue or even start a fight here, but you should seriously check you behavior here, to represent our King better.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure what you mean.
If you're referring to Is 28:11, this applies to the "stammering" part:
h3934. לָעֵג lâ‘êg̱; from 3932; a buffoon; also a foreigner: — mocker, stammering.
AV (2) - mocker 1, stammering 1;
mockingmocker (noun cstr)
(Olive Tree Enhanced Strong's Dictionary)
If you're referring to Is 28:11, this applies to the "stammering" part:
h3934. לָעֵג lâ‘êg̱; from 3932; a buffoon; also a foreigner: — mocker, stammering.
AV (2) - mocker 1, stammering 1;
mockingmocker (noun cstr)
(Olive Tree Enhanced Strong's Dictionary)
-
1
- Show all
The claims come from multiple sources, and are credible to me.
My major point is that KJVers use unequal standards to compare their translation with others.
In this case, the claim is made that two homosexuals were involved in the creation of the NIV. So, I am exposing the inconsistency of their argumentation by observing that two individuals who were involved in the KJV were reputed homosexuals. In fact, one footed the bill.
I also find it interesting that the book carries his name. Why did they name the book after him? Seems pretty vain to me.
I don't think I want to use a Bible named after a specific individual, let alone a gay English king.
My major point is that KJVers use unequal standards to compare their translation with others.
In this case, the claim is made that two homosexuals were involved in the creation of the NIV. So, I am exposing the inconsistency of their argumentation by observing that two individuals who were involved in the KJV were reputed homosexuals. In fact, one footed the bill.
I also find it interesting that the book carries his name. Why did they name the book after him? Seems pretty vain to me.
I don't think I want to use a Bible named after a specific individual, let alone a gay English king.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
Compare 1 John 5:7-8 between the KJV and ESV, and you will see that a line was inserted in the KJV that is not in the ESV.
Erasmus was pressured to include it in the Textus Receptus by the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's a more technical explanation:
1 John 5:7 5:7 b tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udor kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
(NET Bible Notes - Full Notes)
Compare 1 John 5:7-8 between the KJV and ESV, and you will see that a line was inserted in the KJV that is not in the ESV.
Erasmus was pressured to include it in the Textus Receptus by the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's a more technical explanation:
1 John 5:7 5:7 b tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udor kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
(NET Bible Notes - Full Notes)
Stammer means to stutter.
And, are you referring to "speaking in tongues"?
-
1
- Show all
Except the slander against King James is just that.
A nasty rumor started by someone holding a grudge because they were banished from court starts a lie against a king who's name attaches to the holy word of God is still a lie. Designed no doubt to impugn the legitimacy of the Bible he authorized published.
Whereas in the case of the NIV, which is criticized as a translation in itself,
Problems With the New International Version, the charge of homosexuality against at least two people who participated in its version creation are actual facts. Which the OP does not clearly explain at all. In fact the OP clearly intends to propagate the false charge against king James and by allusion KJV "Onlyists". I'd hope we'd ask why, what is the motive? When the old rumor about king James is precisely that. Old and a proven falsity as there was never any evidence to support the rumor started by Anthony Weldon.
Virginia Mollenkott is an open Lesbian. She was the Stylistic editor of the NIV version. Anyone can look her up on any search engine and discover this fact.
Furthermore,Dr. Marten Woudstra , now departed, was chairman of the NIV's Old Testament translation committee and he was in fact homosexual. He stated once, "Loving monogamous relationships between gay men or women were acceptable to God and that there was nothing in the Old Testament that spoke against the perversion. " As reported by a source: http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/marten_woudstra.htm
A nasty rumor started by someone holding a grudge because they were banished from court starts a lie against a king who's name attaches to the holy word of God is still a lie. Designed no doubt to impugn the legitimacy of the Bible he authorized published.
Whereas in the case of the NIV, which is criticized as a translation in itself,
Problems With the New International Version, the charge of homosexuality against at least two people who participated in its version creation are actual facts. Which the OP does not clearly explain at all. In fact the OP clearly intends to propagate the false charge against king James and by allusion KJV "Onlyists". I'd hope we'd ask why, what is the motive? When the old rumor about king James is precisely that. Old and a proven falsity as there was never any evidence to support the rumor started by Anthony Weldon.
Virginia Mollenkott is an open Lesbian. She was the Stylistic editor of the NIV version. Anyone can look her up on any search engine and discover this fact.
Furthermore,Dr. Marten Woudstra , now departed, was chairman of the NIV's Old Testament translation committee and he was in fact homosexual. He stated once, "Loving monogamous relationships between gay men or women were acceptable to God and that there was nothing in the Old Testament that spoke against the perversion. " As reported by a source: http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/marten_woudstra.htm
-
2
- Show all
No, actually the slander began with one man who's grudge against the king. That others carried that rumor forward does not make the rumor, never substantiated by facts hence it remains a rumor and slander, does not make it credible.
Why someone who is in Christ would bear false witness so as to slander a dead king and imply something against the standards of what they've termed, KJV Onlyists, is between you and Christ.
Perhaps you should research the many many versions of the Bible available and compare the criticisms of those versions in relation to the KJV. As it is you've chosen two versions for your OP. The KJV and the NIV. People for years have known the issues that surround the New International Version translation.
There is a difference between rumor and facts. The former pertains to king James. The latter is proven concerning two people involved with the creation of the NIV.
As one guilty of the sin of bearing false witness, I'd not judge vanity when it is not that at all but a matter of fact for what was achieved in publishing the first edition of the Bible in 1611. King James being the Sovereign of England authorized the publishing of that Bible version and that is why it is officially decreed as the King James Version. Because without his approval the printing press that created the tome of the words of God would not have been allowed. The title denotes that edition of the Bible is officially permitted under rule of the king.
It's not vanity, it was the law of the land at the time.
[quoteI don't think I want to use a Bible named after a specific individual, let alone a gay English king.[/QUOTE] Someone who promotes slanderous rumors against a king is condemned by scriptures found in any Bible. They are one's that the scriptures tell Christians to pray for so that God may turn their heart of sin to the light of righteousness.
Why someone who is in Christ would bear false witness so as to slander a dead king and imply something against the standards of what they've termed, KJV Onlyists, is between you and Christ.
Perhaps you should research the many many versions of the Bible available and compare the criticisms of those versions in relation to the KJV. As it is you've chosen two versions for your OP. The KJV and the NIV. People for years have known the issues that surround the New International Version translation.
There is a difference between rumor and facts. The former pertains to king James. The latter is proven concerning two people involved with the creation of the NIV.
As one guilty of the sin of bearing false witness, I'd not judge vanity when it is not that at all but a matter of fact for what was achieved in publishing the first edition of the Bible in 1611. King James being the Sovereign of England authorized the publishing of that Bible version and that is why it is officially decreed as the King James Version. Because without his approval the printing press that created the tome of the words of God would not have been allowed. The title denotes that edition of the Bible is officially permitted under rule of the king.
It's not vanity, it was the law of the land at the time.
[quoteI don't think I want to use a Bible named after a specific individual, let alone a gay English king.[/QUOTE] Someone who promotes slanderous rumors against a king is condemned by scriptures found in any Bible. They are one's that the scriptures tell Christians to pray for so that God may turn their heart of sin to the light of righteousness.
-
2
- Show all
I didn't know the writers of the NIV were gay.
I've never really liked the NIV. But I grew up on the KJV and stuck with that one.
There are a few scriptures that I think the KJV misses a little. Like 1 Cor 13 where it uses charity instead of love.
But mostly I refer to the KJV as the Real Bible.
You can refer to the English Standard or
The ESV does seem to flow with its thought a little better.
That added line in the KJV seems to interrupt the thought kind of needlessly. Not that its in any way incorrect but maybe just unnecessary at that point.
I've never really liked the NIV. But I grew up on the KJV and stuck with that one.
There are a few scriptures that I think the KJV misses a little. Like 1 Cor 13 where it uses charity instead of love.
But mostly I refer to the KJV as the Real Bible.
You can refer to the English Standard or
The ESV does seem to flow with its thought a little better.
That added line in the KJV seems to interrupt the thought kind of needlessly. Not that its in any way incorrect but maybe just unnecessary at that point.
Is it not God who puts dignitaries and Kings in place? And are we not supposed to support all in these positions in authority? Surely any King of England on the throne who tried to name the Bible after him, knew this?
If God says submit to them, then who is anyone to dispute it?
1 Peter 2:13 13Submit yourselves for the LORD's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority.
One of the thousand reasons I go with the KJV.
If God says submit to them, then who is anyone to dispute it?
1 Peter 2:13 13Submit yourselves for the LORD's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority.
One of the thousand reasons I go with the KJV.
-
1
- Show all
You're COMPLETELY missing the point.
The point is not that King James was (or was not) a deviant. The point is that KJV-only advocates use certain criticisms against other Bible translations because of personnel involved in the translation, and COMPLETELY IGNORE exactly the same kind of criticisms against the KJV. They are inconsistent and use double standards.
Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Why do they whine about slander instead of addressing the real issue the OP identifies?
The point is not that King James was (or was not) a deviant. The point is that KJV-only advocates use certain criticisms against other Bible translations because of personnel involved in the translation, and COMPLETELY IGNORE exactly the same kind of criticisms against the KJV. They are inconsistent and use double standards.
Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Why do they whine about slander instead of addressing the real issue the OP identifies?
-
1
- Show all