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.

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#61
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
My position would be that the rumors about Erasmus and King James are likely true.

You don't address the evidence contained in the letters between Erasmus and the monk he was attempting to romance.

Do you want me to post segments of the letter, and let the reader decide if a normal male would think that they are the words of a heterosexual? Do you want me to post segments of a letter where King James called a man his "wife"?

All I have to do is dig them up again.

Funny thing is, I've seen KJV Onlyist discussions on this topic where they do not try to hide these facts, but try to explain them away as talk that is characteristic of male companionship at that time.

My intention is to show double standards of some KJVists and their rhetoric.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#62
Attacks against certain characters of individuals are called ad hominem attacks, it the assumption that because a person in wrong in one thing he must also be wrong in this matter. If that is the case then there is no one that can be correct in any matter. So let's look only at what is pertinent to the subject at hand, and that is biblical translation. So what are the matters at hand concerning the KJV and the NIV neither of which do I care much for, ( I prefer the NASB, or YLT), nor do I understand why the argument of biblical translation is framed in such a manner.
So what is pertinent? Motivation.
What motivated these people to do the work that they did?
From Erasmus attempting to secure Publication rights before Cardinal Cicsneros, to King James seeking to appease the papists by replacing the Bishops Bible (which had many anti papacy notes in the margins). These things affect quality of translation.
What was the motivation behind the translation of the NIV.
The guys says he was being a missionary and old English didn't translate well to other languages, but there was the ASV which is an American English version so I think he is out of the water there. I think it's Evangelical roots and the 2011 version kind of gives it away, with it's gender neutral stuff. Appeal to the masses.
 

Heyjude

Active member
Sep 7, 2019
277
121
43
#63
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.
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.
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 the one you made that I am addressing not the one I made. You said
"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.[/QUOTE]"
Maybe the people who read the Bible at that time know they should submit to those in Authority as the Bible says to. That is why he put his own name on it and not because he was "vain" as you put it. That was the point I was answering. Lot of pointy hats around here and everyone is playing "Triangle Toss". I am just Sweet Oblio....I have no point at all (I am a roundhead).
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,229
113
www.christiancourier.com
#64
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?
I didn't miss the point in the least.
In fact I think you missed the point entirely. But I will not argue over this. The difference between the validity of the KJV and NIV is as clear as day.
Oddly there are those who are anti-KJV persons in this world. For that condition I feel there is no answer, nor need to debate. They're set in their ways and it is a waste of precious time to think someone is able to talk them out of that.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#65
By the way, the author Adam Nicholson covered the subject of sexuality of King James, as well as the faults of other men who were involved in the translation, in the book called God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible.

I haven't read it completely myself, but a Christian friend of mine told me that he doesn't see why anyone would hold the KJV Only position in light of the material Nicholson presents. It's pretty obvious that those who were involved were a messed up lot of people.

It also covers how the KJV translators utilized Tyndale's translation heavily, so it is not a fresh translation from Greek and Hebrew like some claim.

Nichols actually admires the KJV Bible, though.

Here's a video by Adam Nicholson, and he clearly indicates his sexuality issues. He would be placing his reputation on the line if it wasn't true.

 

Heyjude

Active member
Sep 7, 2019
277
121
43
#66
I didn't miss the point in the least.
In fact I think you missed the point entirely. But I will not argue over this. The difference between the validity of the KJV and NIV is as clear as day.
Oddly there are those who are anti-KJV persons in this world. For that condition I feel there is no answer, nor need to debate. They're set in their ways and it is a waste of precious time to think someone is able to talk them out of that.
Sounds about right. Seems daft to me to argue over it. It just leads to the Pointless Forest.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,229
113
www.christiancourier.com
#67
My position would be that the rumors about Erasmus and King James are likely true.

You don't address the evidence contained in the letters between Erasmus and the monk he was attempting to romance.

Do you want me to post segments of the letter, and let the reader decide if a normal male would think that they are the words of a heterosexual? Do you want me to post segments of a letter where King James called a man his "wife"?

All I have to do is dig them up again.

Funny thing is, I've seen KJV Onlyist discussions on this topic where they do not try to hide these facts, but try to explain them away as talk that is characteristic of male companionship at that time.

My intention is to show double standards of some KJVists and their rhetoric.
Oh, it goes much deeper than that.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#68
This is a better documentary on the KJV creation by Adam Nicholson which would cover points I brought up:


A second one:

 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#69
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.
We aren't subject, as believers, to a king born 400 years ago.
 

Heyjude

Active member
Sep 7, 2019
277
121
43
#70
We aren't subject, as believers, to a king born 400 years ago.
No but they were 400 years ago when THE BIBLE WAS PRINTED. I am out of this thread for now, as you seem to argue with what anyone says. And by the way. giving the BBC documentary as a good example is not a good example (not in England anyway). A bad example is not a good example. I for one don't care about this enough to comment further. Read what you like okay?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,170
3,999
113
#71
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).

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.
 

Heyjude

Active member
Sep 7, 2019
277
121
43
#72
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.
Sounds about right. By the way I am lovin the it "Don't mean a thing if you an't got the King". Bup doo wup bup doo wup...
 

Heyjude

Active member
Sep 7, 2019
277
121
43
#73
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.
This version of it by Gabin in my car right now. Weird
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#74
Here is the point of the OP, as stated by UWC himself: "My major point is that KJVers use unequal standards to compare their translation with others."

I won't bother discussing this fact with you any further.

The difference between the validity of the KJV and NIV is as clear as day.
With empty words you rattle on. Present unbiased evidence, or don't bother making assertions.

Oddly there are those who are anti-KJV persons in this world. For that condition I feel there is no answer, nor need to debate. They're set in their ways and it is a waste of precious time to think someone is able to talk them out of that.
It's ridiculous to label anyone who does not embrace the KJV-only position as "anti-KJV". That's about as stupid as pro-abortion activists calling pro-lifers "anti-choice".
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#75
No but they were 400 years ago when THE BIBLE WAS PRINTED. I am out of this thread for now, as you seem to argue with what anyone says. And by the way. giving the BBC documentary as a good example is not a good example (not in England anyway). A bad example is not a good example. I for one don't care about this enough to comment further. Read what you like okay?
FYI, King James made no effort to "name the bible after him". It was printed as "The Holy Bible", and later came to be known as the King James version.
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,022
1,506
113
#76
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:ROFL:?????

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.
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.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#77
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.
Apology accepted. I forgive you.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
2,058
1,320
113
#78
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.
I'm glad you mentioned Caiaphas...I just read that recently and made a similar connection. It's an important distinction that knowledge of the father is not the same as having knowledge of the son. Having knowledge of the son is not the same as having "revelation" of the son.

the enemy has knowledge of both, but not "revelation" of truth.

In Balaam's case I would say based off personal experience that he was unwilling to die to himself. He had giftings but from my reading they were not "submitted" and thus clear error was evident. I've learned so much from that account...also note "maybe" in the account. That is critical. "Let us see"...


It's still something I haven't fully grasped but I do think that the father gives knowledge of himself to certain people and they operate within that knowledge, but they don't "KNOW" him, neither are they "KNOWN" except in a negative context.

Saul got the information he wanted contacting Samuel...but that was NOT a good thing. Did Saul know the Lord? I would say that he had knowledge of the Lord as per his station but did not "KNOW" the Lord as David did/does. Neither was he "KNOWN".


This concept is still growing in me, but it's definitely deepened my relationship and quelled certain doubts as I've progressed about what is "proper" in seeking the Lord. There are dangers to unfettered pursuits and one can fall into error by doing it "your way" and not HIS way. The way of the living word. Praise Yeshua that we have HIS earthly example :)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#79
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.
I agree that the statement was in response to the rebellious Jews, but not only did God say that he would speak to them with another tongue (Greek), he also said that he would speak to them with stammering lips.

Stammering lips means to speaking or saying something with unusual pauses or repeated sounds. This points to "here a little, there a little" but it also points to a very specific sounding speech. Someone who stutters sounds VERY DIFFERENT than those that don't.

The point that I was trying to make is in reference to the very specific sounding speech.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#80
How does that relate to the KJV or other translations?

And, are you referring to "speaking in tongues"?
"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.