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

[blue_ladybug]

"Gay-sounding letters"? REALLY??

 

[Locoponydirtman]

what is a pope?

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

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).

Thank you, you have exposed some of the "KJV only cult" narrative that is used to attack the rest of good scholarly translations. Good work!

 

[Dino246]

Umm...
And I think, there is a circular reasoning here: I’ll challenge your assertion over your fact that “no translation is inspired by God”.

Of course, I have to look what the Bible says more than anything else like circular reasoning of man. Biblically, citation from the Hebrew Old Testament was translated in the New Testament. Greek. Thus the Greek equivalent or translation in so far is given by inspiration and is called scripture. So, the post is already flawed. God indeed use “reasoning” but it must be based on God standard, even Paul had used reasoning “out of the scriptures” and in many times he usually cited Hebrew Old Testament which was penned downed in a Greek language.

Isaiah 1:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Acts 17:2

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

2 Timothy 3:15, 16, are NOT a reference to the “originals”. They refer to “the holy scriptures,” copies of Old Testament Books that Timothy had known “from a child.” Timothy was from Lystra, not Jerusalem and he was of mixed parentage, i.e. “his father was a Greek” Acts 16:1, not one of “the chief priests” Matthew 26:3, who would have had custody over ‘the originals,’ even if they had existed then. It would therefore have been impossible for Timothy to have had access to them such “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15a.

Yet Timothy clearly had access to “all scripture...given by inspiration of God.” The term “inspiration,” therefore, applies to copies of the scriptures and to translations,

Nobody is arguing that the translations included within the text of Scripture are not inspired (though there are some interesting issues there too). You're playing with semantics.

In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations, in that the translations are still the inspired word of God. The 1611 Preface to the Reader addresses this issue. However, there is a significant categorical difference between claiming that the translation is the inspired word of God and claiming that God inspired every word of the translation. The latter, which some KJV-only advocates claim (and which you seem to claim here), is a fallacy of equivocation and is simply not true.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Nobody is arguing that the translations included within the text of Scripture are not inspired (though there are some interesting issues there too). You're playing with semantics.

In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations, in that the translations are still the inspired word of God. The 1611 Preface to the Reader addresses this issue. However, there is a significant categorical difference between claiming that the translation is the inspired word of God and claiming that God inspired every word of the translation. The latter, which some KJV-only advocates claim (and which you seem to claim here), is a fallacy of equivocation and is simply not true.

I dont know how many times you will have to explain this, or how many way you will have to explain it.
It's never going to happen that he understands, because he can't allow himself to. He is far to invested in his ignorance, pride, and fear concerning this subject.
But I do like the way you explain it. I couldn't find the words myself.

 

[KJV1611]

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It asserts or assumes that one translation is inspired while another isn't. In fact, no translation is inspired by God.

God spoke the universe into existence.
He caused the original writers to write the scripture exactly the way he wanted it written, right down to the jot and title.

He made an ass speak the word of God.

He told his people to study the scripture and rightly divide the word of truth to be approved by God as a workman for the kingdom of God.

Where did you come up with "In fact, no translation is inspired by God."?

Did you rightly divide the word of truth to come to that conclusion?

If so could you show us the scripture where God said he WASN'T CAPABLE or WASN'T WILLING to translate his word into other languages?

 

[KJV1611]

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It contains an implied fallacy of equivocation, wherein the translation of Scripture is equated with the concept of "Scripture".

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

 

[Dino246]

God spoke the universe into existence.
He caused the original writers to write the scripture exactly the way he wanted it written, right down to the jot and title.

He made an ass speak the word of God.

He told his people to study the scripture and rightly divide the word of truth to be approved by God as a workman for the kingdom of God.

Where did you come up with "In fact, no translation is inspired by God."?

Did you rightly divide the word of truth to come to that conclusion?

If so could you show us the scripture where God said he WASN'T CAPABLE or WASN'T WILLING to translate his word into other languages?

Do you make reasonable conclusions about Scripture as a whole based on what is written in Scripture, even though the conclusions are not explicitly stated? I know that you do; we discussed one earlier this week.

My conclusion follows logically from what is stated. "All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired)." The Scriptures were "inspired" in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek... that's it, that's all. His inspired word is translated by humans into other languages, and the inspiration of Scripture is maintained, but as I explained in response to Fredo, that is a completely different thing than God inspiring every word of the translation. It's a simple but very important distinction.

If you're going to argue that God did inspire the words of the destination language in the case of the KJV, then you must accept that the KJV is not the only "inspired" version in English, because it uses around 70-80% of material that Tyndale wrote... therefore Tyndale must have been inspired. Because there is more than one "inspired" version, there is no reason why there cannot be additional "inspired" versions. You're stuck in a logical box of your own making.

 

[Dino246]

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

Fallacy of equivocation.

 

[oldethennew]

the simplicity of this argument is beyond it's simplicity = mankind is carnal -
the Holy Scriptures were handed down to Holy Men of God, and then of course, perverted/copied into the new-world -
the world that is 'un-holy' in all of its ways - BUT,
God has preserved His Holy Words and Ways through His chosen to those whom are chosen'...

MATT. 1:15.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
13:43.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in The Kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
LUKE 8:8.
And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when He had said these things,
He cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
11TI. 4:3.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap
to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4.
And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, and shall be turned unto 'fables'.
5.
But 'watch you' in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of your ministry.
6.
For I am now 'ready to be offered', and the time of my departure is at hand.
7.
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, 'I have KEPT The Faith':
8.
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which The Lord, The Righteous Judge,
shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto 'all them also that love His appearing'.

 

[Dino246]

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

I'll explain my earlier comment further...

If you accept that every translation is on the same level ("Scripture"), the your comment is sound. However, as I know from previous posts of yours, you consider only the KJV to be "Scripture" in English; therefore you are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation.

The 1611 Preface to the Reader explains that even the poorest translation of the king's speech is still 'the king's speech'. In other words, even a poor translation of Scripture is still "Scripture". So we can consider even the KJV to be Scripture, despite its many shortcomings.

 

[Whispered]

I gonna find out which version will stop a bullet and read that one exclusively

Promise?

The Book of Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
The World War One soldier whose Bible stopped a bullet

Christian Today staff writer Mon 5 Nov 2018

George Vinall's Bible with the bullets that came close to killing him.


Unless I miss my guess pictured is the KJV Bible. I have an old copy that looks just like that in matters of the binding that is visible around the pages that are red on their outer leaf.
The Bible Society distributed 9 million Bibles during WW1. Those copies looked like this.
Which is clearly not the one pictured in the article and credited to the Bible Society.

 

[Whispered]

I was referring to the pope as a man who sees himself as sitting on the Earthly throne of God.

Thank you for taking the time to add that clarification. I do appreciate it.

 

[Whispered]

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

The issue of the Bible being inspired by God has been debated for probably centuries since the first Bible came into print.
The relativity of the verse, as in The Book of 2nd Timothy chapter 3 and verse 16, as proving God did inspire the scripture is known as the Law of the Excluded Middle and defined as, something either is or is not. There is no such thing as, a middle position.
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/glances ahead/IV.excluded.middle.html

The Holy Scriptures: Verbally Inspired By Wayne Jackson


In matters of the point that has been broached here as to the percentage of the Tyndale translation Bible was used by those who compiled the authorized King James Version, the Geneva version draws more from Tyndale than the KJV, you may wish to review this.
Also, for clarification on that matter, it should be reiterated that king James did not write the Bible nor did he claim those charged with creating the authorized KJV version ever claimed their work was inspired. The history of the KJV appearing in different links throught this thread I hope makes that clear.
Ronald Mansbridge: The Percentage of Words in the Geneva and King James Versions taken from Tyndale's translation.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

God inspired his word to us, and has preserved his word to us, and in the translations distributed his words to us. And Dino is correct in the matter of translation.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Promise?

The Book of Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
The World War One soldier whose Bible stopped a bullet

Christian Today staff writer Mon 5 Nov 2018

George Vinall's Bible with the bullets that came close to killing him.


Unless I miss my guess pictured is the KJV Bible. I have an old copy that looks just like that in matters of the binding that is visible around the pages that are red on their outer leaf.
The Bible Society distributed 9 million Bibles during WW1. Those copies looked like this.
Which is clearly not the one pictured in the article and credited to the Bible Society.

That's a cool story, thanks for posting it.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Just so this is clear, I want to mention that I am not disparaging individuals who suffer from same-sex attraction issues.

My point is this: if you reject modern versions based on a given criterion, why do you not use the same criterion and reject the King James Version?

This demonstrates inconsistency, and exposes, in my mind, the major reason behind KJV Onlyism: tradition.

I agree that some KJVers have a different, reasonable standard for their claims. While I don't agree with their reasoning, I can recognize their right to a well-reasoned difference of opinion.

However, most of the arguments I see from the KJV Only camp are not well reasoned arguments, and that strongly colors my perception of the KJV only camp. Steven Anderson, Sam Gimp, Kent Hovind, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman added to my disdain for their claims. Every one of those guys is a joke and have said things that are totally ridiculous.

I also realize some like the KJV simply due to preference. I don't, but I recognize that it has some endearing characteristics.

By the way, one of my friends, Phil, was educated at a prominent Roman Catholic university. He was saved while reading a stick-figure Bible that was a super-paraphrased version.

 

[Grandpa]

Just so this is clear, I want to mention that I am not disparaging individuals who suffer from same-sex attraction issues.

My point is this: if you reject modern versions based on a given criterion, why do you not use the same criterion and reject the King James Version?

This demonstrates inconsistency, and exposes, in my mind, the major reason behind KJV Onlyism: tradition.

I agree that some KJVers have a different, reasonable standard for their claims. While I don't agree with their reasoning, I can recognize their right to a well-reasoned difference of opinion.

However, most of the arguments I see from the KJV Only camp are not well reasoned arguments, and that strongly colors my perception of the KJV only camp. Steven Anderson, Sam Gimp, Kent Hovind, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman added to my disdain for their claims. Every one of those guys is a joke and have said things that are totally ridiculous.

I also realize some like the KJV simply due to preference. I don't, but I recognize that it has some endearing characteristics.

By the way, one of my friends, Phil, was educated at a prominent Roman Catholic university. He was saved while reading a stick-figure Bible that was a super-paraphrased version.

I've seen people take certain verses and make them say the EXACT opposite of what was intended in the KJV just by using a different translation.

I've had to go back to the KJV to see what the verse ACTUALLY said so I could figure out their mistake.

It is VERY RARE for someone to take the KJV and twist it into something opposite of what it says. It usually takes a whole different version of the bible to do this.


And because people do that with their different version of the bible I always say let's look at the REAL bible and see what it says. The KJV...

With all that said I do admit that there other versions that say certain things more clearly in some passages than the KJV. But overall, the KJV is best. Sometimes it is good to look at several different versions of the bible to get a good understanding of what is trying to be said.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

"Recognizing that none of these earlier translations were likely to inspire widespread doctrinal, ecclesiastical, political, or social harmony, King James I called for the creation of a new translation of the Bible that would offer the English-speaking world a single authoritative and agreeable version of Scripture."
(Ohio, State University, biblical studies)


"P. Hume Brown noted that in Scotland "the ministers perfectly understood that James was ready to change his faith the moment he should find it expedient" (History of Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 192). It seems that the godly pastors in the Church of Scotland regarded King James as a compromiser and as unworthy of trust."

"In 1610 during the reign of King James I, Babbage stated that "the House of Commons addressed a Petition to the king for the redress of grievances arising through the Court of High Commission" (Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, pp. 286-287). Alexander McClure noted that Archbishop Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217)."

"Directly under King James I, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, a leading member of this Court, was the overseer for the translation of the KJV. He approved or made the rules for the translation, and he clearly had the power to force his views on others. A KJV translator claimed that Bancroft made at least fourteen changes in the KJV before it was published."

The brutality of some of the punishments issued by this court are shocking. The example of the treatment of one Puritan preacher, Alexander Leighton, in 1628 or 1629 illustrates this brutality. For writing a book that condemned the institution of bishops as "anti-Christian and satanic," the High Commission Court issued a warrant for him. He was taken to Laud's house and then to Newgate prison without any trial. Leighton was put in irons in solitary confinement in an unheated cell for fifteen weeks. Smith stated that the roof of his cell was uncovered so that the rain and snow beat in upon him (Select Memoirs, p. 428). None of his friends nor even his wife were permitted to see him during this time. According to four doctors, Leighton was so sick that he was unable to attend his supposed sentencing; Leighton also "was tied to a stake and received thirty-six stripes with a heavy cord upon his naked back; he was placed in the pillory for two hours in November's frost and snow; he was branded in the face, had his nose split and his ears cut off, and was condemned to life imprisonment" (Age of Reason Begins, pp. 189-190).

In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation.

Conant noted, "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime".

Quotes and references noted.

 

[Whispered]

That's a cool story, thanks for posting it.

I thought so to. You've very welcome.