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

[Whispered]

This argument was not started by someone criticizing the KJV, but by someone criticizing the double standards of KJV-only advocates.

It is amazing to me that so many people can't grasp that simple distinction. One would think that readers of the KJV might have greater reading comprehension than the rest of us, not lesser.

One would think you started the thread the way you insist you know precisely what the OP had in mind when writing it.
Repeatedly resorting to insults against people who are fond of the KJV is not demonstrative of a strong point.
If you can't forego insulting people who do not see this thread as you would prefer so as not to result to insulting them due to that angst, perhaps you should read the Bible so as to remind yourself of how very wrong it is in the eyes of God to resort to that communication form.

The Book of James chapter 1 verse 26
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

 

[Dino246]

Nice cop out.

Just telling you the truth.

 

[Dino246]

I appreciate that. You have an issue with not accepting when you are wrong.
That's quite unfortunate as is your thinking you can tell someone when they may speak.
Unbiased evidence? I appreciate the humor of that given the theme of the OP is all that and more. Thank you at least for the comedic relief after your very unfortunate reply.

As you have come nowhere near demonstrating that I am wrong, your post is irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

One would think you started the thread the way you insist you know precisely what the OP had in mind when writing it.
Repeatedly resorting to insults against people who are fond of the KJV is not demonstrative of a strong point.

I read and understood the OP, and then I quoted the OP's statement verbatim. Do you propose somehow to tell me that what he wrote about his own post is not the truth and therefore the end of the matter? Or do you perhaps insist that your re-interpretation carries more validity than his words?

 

[KJV1611]

Just telling you the truth.

I appreciate it.

 

[Adstar]

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.

Once again clear denial of reality.. God spoke to Balaam.. God sent Balaam to give His message And Balaam did so.. The fact that Balaam then sinned and gave the King advise on how to get the Hebrews to cause the protection of God to be broken does not mean Balaam was not,, for a time,, a Prophet of God.. All of the prophets of God where sinners.. Moses was a murderer who became a prophet.. King Saul was declared a prophet of God but he ended up using a medium to contact the dead.. The Bible is filled with sinning human prophets..

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Happy to help you. God bless.

Bible Researcher
The Johannine Comma
(1 John 5:7-8)
The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.​

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.​

From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:

For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.​

We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).
After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

• 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
• 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
• 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). .

because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these — the three — are one; and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 YLT1898
https://bible.com/bible/821/1jn.5.7-8.YLT1898

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1jn.5.7-8.NASB

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/1jn.5.7-8.KJV

Notice how YLT has it in brackets and the NASB don't have that statement at all, while the KJV doesn't even acknowledge that there may well be some question concerning the text.
This adds up to yet another reason I don't even bother with the KJV. The evidence of the motives of King James only becomes more apparent with every study of the subject.

I have yet to hear any reason or proof for the KJVO folks to make their claim that God has some how ordained the KJV as his word. They make the assertion, but never provide any reasoning other than God has to ordain one ( which I don't find necessary either). You have a list.

"The New Testament is based on the best Greek manuscript, Textus Receptus. Modern English translations are based on manuscripts that were older and appeared in better shape, but only because they were not used because of many errors found in them. (Webmaster's paraphrase)"
older and better shape don't necessarily mean not used, it could mean preserved with intent to preserve like mom's good dishes if you will.
Also who found errors in them, and why are they errors? More and older would imply greater consensus.

"It had the most spiritual translators, real believing translators, and therefore the most spiritual and correct translation."

Well that's certainly subjective. We're the Anglicans more spiritual than the Puritans, and the Presbyterians who used the Bishop's Bible? Was placating the papists blood lust spiritual?"

"It's the best known, the most widespread and the most recognisable.--And if you quote it, most people will recognise it and know you're quoting them the Bible."

That's an opinion, ... I don't know what bearing it has on the subject.

"It has been time-tested for nearly 400 years, and if you accept what it says and obey it, it works!"

Two part statement; two part answer. It helps stand the test of time when it is thrust on you by force.
YLT is even older and still around.
And as far as working, so does any other translation.

"It was written at the time the English language was spoken and used in its most perfect form."

Well this is certainly a subjective statement. YLT, Bishop's, and KJV are from the same era and the language is very much the same.

"The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations."

Except that there is a whole list of words that we don't use or even know what they mean anymore. Someone posted that list in another thread before, even at that it's still not evidence of Devine stamp of approval above all others.


" The King James Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of English literature."

Except for the terrible grammar, and other literary problem like transliteration of many words rather than actual translation.

"It is no longer copyrighted, meaning anybody can reprint it, copy it or publish it and they don't have to pay a copyright fee."

Ok

"The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's inspiration and the majority opinion."

Best men of God is definitely subjective.
Let's not forget some of the edict rules imposed like the word baptized must be used every time "baptizo" is written rather than a word that would better express the meaning like merced in, saturated by, engulfed, or washed. Also Pastor rather than Shepard.

"The translators decided not to add footnotes and explanatory notes, preferring to let the Word speak for itself."

Or to obscure their intent.

It seems that every time I e of these threads crop up, I do more research, the more research I do the less I like the KJV.

 

[Jimbone]

hello friend. im not an andersonite.

but i do appreciate your attitude. you are right i shouldnt of responded to snarky condescending comments with snakry condescending comments but turned the other cheek.
i guess my pride got the best of me.

i apologize im sorry. btw: i say the same to you as i did before, the only reason i brought up james white and jeff durbin is because the op suggested king james and erasmus were going 'that way'. so i just responded like that because of it.
i dont actually think they are that way lolz. it was just to point out the hypocrisy in my opinion that if i did the same, i would get flack for it, which i did.

i should of not gone forth to prove any points and just leave it as is, say i disagree with the op for reasons x y and z instead of make unchristlike statements justifying it with "but he started!!!"

sorry Dino, i apologize. sorry Jimbone as well and all who read it.

Praise Jesus man, and I appreciate the response, and I also apologize and know I could be softer as well. I do also want to recognize the fact I was coming into a conversation that had built up. I just kind of jumped in with my comment and honestly I praise Jesus name for the way you responded. I recognize our Shepherds voice in your reply and it wasn't completely fair to come at it the way I did, just jumping into it like that. A good lesson learned. I should have engaged you myself with a few questions and stuff like that first, like I am always suggesting we should do, and didn't do myself. I to threw WAY too many assumptions out there and I truly apologize for that, I also really enjoyed this exchange, and I just pray that our King draw each of us closer to Him and by doing, closer to each other in His name, for His glory, the awesome name of Jesus.

 

[KJV1611]

because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these — the three — are one; and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 YLT1898
https://bible.com/bible/821/1jn.5.7-8.YLT1898

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1jn.5.7-8.NASB

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:7‭-‬8 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/1jn.5.7-8.KJV

Notice how YLT has it in brackets and the NASB don't have that statement at all, while the KJV doesn't even acknowledge that there may well be some question concerning the text.
This adds up to yet another reason I don't even bother with the KJV. The evidence of the motives of King James only becomes more apparent with every study of the subject.

I have yet to hear any reason or proof for the KJVO folks to make their claim that God has some how ordained the KJV as his word. They make the assertion, but never provide any reasoning other than God has to ordain one ( which I don't find necessary either). You have a list.

"The New Testament is based on the best Greek manuscript, Textus Receptus. Modern English translations are based on manuscripts that were older and appeared in better shape, but only because they were not used because of many errors found in them. (Webmaster's paraphrase)"
older and better shape don't necessarily mean not used, it could mean preserved with intent to preserve like mom's good dishes if you will.
Also who found errors in them, and why are they errors? More and older would imply greater consensus.

"It had the most spiritual translators, real believing translators, and therefore the most spiritual and correct translation."

Well that's certainly subjective. We're the Anglicans more spiritual than the Puritans, and the Presbyterians who used the Bishop's Bible? Was placating the papists blood lust spiritual?"

"It's the best known, the most widespread and the most recognisable.--And if you quote it, most people will recognise it and know you're quoting them the Bible."

That's an opinion, ... I don't know what bearing it has on the subject.

"It has been time-tested for nearly 400 years, and if you accept what it says and obey it, it works!"

Two part statement; two part answer. It helps stand the test of time when it is thrust on you by force.
YLT is even older and still around.
And as far as working, so does any other translation.

"It was written at the time the English language was spoken and used in its most perfect form."

Well this is certainly a subjective statement. YLT, Bishop's, and KJV are from the same era and the language is very much the same.

"The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations."

Except that there is a whole list of words that we don't use or even know what they mean anymore. Someone posted that list in another thread before, even at that it's still not evidence of Devine stamp of approval above all others.


" The King James Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of English literature."

Except for the terrible grammar, and other literary problem like transliteration of many words rather than actual translation.

"It is no longer copyrighted, meaning anybody can reprint it, copy it or publish it and they don't have to pay a copyright fee."

Ok

"The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's inspiration and the majority opinion."

Best men of God is definitely subjective.
Let's not forget some of the edict rules imposed like the word baptized must be used every time "baptizo" is written rather than a word that would better express the meaning like merced in, saturated by, engulfed, or washed. Also Pastor rather than Shepard.

"The translators decided not to add footnotes and explanatory notes, preferring to let the Word speak for itself."

Or to obscure their intent.

It seems that every time I e of these threads crop up, I do more research, the more research I do the less I like the KJV.

2Ti 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Al scripture is inspired by God. Anything inspired by God is perfect, it has no error. So either at least one bible around today is inerrant or we don’t have any scripture available to us today.

Would you agree or no?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

2Ti 3:16 (KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Al scripture is inspired by God. Anything inspired by God is perfect, it has no error. So either at least one bible around today is inerrant or we don’t have any scripture available to us today.

Would you agree or no?

Yes, which excludes the KJV, with it's unicorns, and added text. Not even bracketed or indication of it being added.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, which excludes the KJV, with it's unicorns, and added text. Not even bracketed or indication of it being added.

Which one do you think it is?

 

[fredoheaven]

I've already discussed this on other threads.

In fact, I think charismatics are more likely to be KJV Only because it emphasizes their doctrines.

Nop, they are only seeming KJVO's not a real one. This needs discernment. Dino is charismatic

This argument was not started by someone criticizing the KJV, but by someone criticizing the double standards of KJV-only advocates.

It is amazing to me that so many people can't grasp that simple distinction. One would think that readers of the KJV might have greater reading comprehension than the rest of us, not lesser.

Umm, he did that on the other thread and he is still doing it here.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yes, which excludes the KJV, with it's unicorns, and added text. Not even bracketed or indication of it being added.

The KJV always shows added words in italics. In fact, it is closest to the Hebrew and Greek text since one can ignore any added words by the translators.

As to unicorns there is no need to make an issue out of that, since it simply means a one-horned creature. Why do people try to make issues out of non-issues.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

the KJV was done by a committee of 47 scholars and clergymen over the course of many years. So we cannot say for certain which individual wrote a given passage.

We know for sure that Erasmus had an effect on the KJV because he created the underlying Greek text.

Actually, we can know which individuals had an effect on what sections, because particular teams worked on specific sections, though.

And, King James commissioned the project.

I agree that it is irrelevant upon the final product, but the point of the entire thread is that two different standards are being used by NIV detractors; one for the KJV and the other for the NIV. If sexually immoral individuals were involved with the NIV, and this contaminated the final product, then we must look at the same thing for the KJV, as two sexually immoral individuals were involved with it, too.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound..." The trumpet is word of God, and the trumpet must make a CERTAIN sound, a sound that is distinguishable from the other trumpets. So it relates to the KJV in that the KJV makes a certain sound, it sounds nothing like all of the other versions.

And yes I do believe that this does refer to speaking in unknown tongues too - If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic), and let The One (God) interpret.

Oh, ok..so are you similar to Steven Anderson, who said that he could tell the NIV was not God's word because it didn't sound right to him?

I wouldn't hold that belief, as I think Steven Anderson was simply used to hearing the KJV, so he couldn't handle the differences.

As the documentary indicated, the KJV was meant to be politically correct, and theologically correct, as well as impressive sounding. I am sure it was impressive back then. I personally prefer the ESV though.

It isn't going to sound like modern translations because it uses archaic language.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The KJV always shows added words in italics. In fact, it is closest to the Hebrew and Greek text since one can ignore any added words by the translators.

As to unicorns there is no need to make an issue out of that, since it simply means a one-horned creature. Why do people try to make issues out of non-issues.

Right, the unicorn thing isn't a big issue.

I would point out the use of Easter instead of Passover on one verse, though. It's obvious this was an error.

 

[KJV1611]

Oh, ok..so are you similar to Steven Anderson, who said that he could tell the NIV was not God's word because it didn't sound right to him?

I wouldn't hold that belief, as I think Steven Anderson was simply used to hearing the KJV, so he couldn't handle the differences.

As the documentary indicated, the KJV was meant to be politically correct, and theologically correct, as well as impressive sounding. I am sure it was impressive back then. I personally prefer the ESV though.

It isn't going to sound like modern translations because it uses archaic language.

All of the KJV only cultist are morons - Anderson Ruckman and the rest. They have done more to hurt the KJV than anything James White has ever written or said. So no I don't believe anything that comes out of Anderson's mouth.

I've heard the politically correct argument before... where's the evidence? I don't see any when I read the KJV. People come up with asinine arguments like the church of England used the word Bishop to gain political control over people blah blah blah. None of that means anything to me, Christ is the BISHOP of my soul.

From what I've read and I think this is true, the KJV had a distinct sound even to peoples of that time. But that doesn't even matter, it does nothing to prove that the KJV is the word of God, it's only one characteristic in a line of characteristics that prove the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I would point out the use of Easter instead of Passover on one verse, though. It's obvious this was an error.

At that point in history the Christian festival of Easter coincided with the Pascha, which included both Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Ideally the KJV translators could have simply transliterated it as Pascha, but it would not have been understood by English readers. So they INTERPRETED it as Easter. Not an error but an interpretation.

You will note that modern versions are replete with interpretations rather than translations or transliterations. But no one comments on that. Yet they make a big issue out of Easter.

What we should be doing is ignoring all the mud-slinging on King James or anyone else. That is merely a meaningless distraction. The focus should be on whether the King James Bible is an outstanding English translation was was THE English Bible worldwide for over 300 years. That is sufficient to establish its value.

 

[KJV1611]

At that point in history the Christian festival of Easter coincided with the Pascha, which included both Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Ideally the KJV translators could have simply transliterated it as Pascha, but it would not have been understood by English readers. So they INTERPRETED it as Easter.

You will note that modern versions are replete with interpretations rather than translations or transliterations. But no one comments on that. Yet they make a big issue out of Easter.

The KJV translators used Easter because Easter is the fulfillment of Passover and that verse is the only place in the bible where pascha was used after Passover had been fulfilled.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The KJV translators used Easter because Easter is the fulfillment of Passover and that verse is the only place in the bible where pascha was used after Passover had been fulfilled.

Well there's nothing wrong with taking it in that way either. But to call it an error is incorrect. Those men were extremely careful about how they translated the Word of God.