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

[fredoheaven]

I looked it up, in Strong's, concordance, and several Greek dictionaries, and some Greek to english translators. After looking in many sources, I found that all of them agree as to the meaning of the word.
You provided no evidence only gave some weird kind of rhetoric and then made an absurd assertion, that no one was trying to profit from the Gospel, even though in the book of Acts Peter literally rebukes a man this very behavior, and through out the new testament there are many references to those that make merchandise of the Gospel.

I looked it up, in Strong's, concordance, and several Greek dictionaries, and some Greek to english translators. After looking in many sources, I found that all of them agree as to the meaning of the word.
You provided no evidence only gave some weird kind of rhetoric and then made an absurd assertion, that no one was trying to profit from the Gospel, even though in the book of Acts Peter literally rebukes a man this very behavior, and through out the new testament there are many references to those that make merchandise of the Gospel.

Perhaps you are in reference to simony from the name of Simon Magus or sorcery in allusion to offer his money to Apostle Peter and John for the gift of conferring the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:18,19). What we are talking about is the word of God and not the gift of conferring the Holy Ghost. You are in the wrong trade, my friend.

BTW, are you not willing to quote, gave a link to your so-called Greek dictionaries and let see, how true is your statement?

Thanks,

 

[Nehemiah6]

Now, let’s see the factual evidence that surrounds the text in question and perhaps the best reason to conclude the KJV is superior to the newer English versions.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon confirms that the rendering in the KJV is the correct one:

...καπηλεύειν τί was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate (Themistius, or. 21, p. 247, Hard. edition says that the false philosophers τόθειοτατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀγαθῶν κιβδηλεύειντέ καί αἰσχύνειν καί καπηλεύειν); and most interpreters rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Corinthians 2:17, cf. δολουντόν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxii.)

Which means that the modern versions corrupted this translation. They are also based upon Gnostic corruptions.

 

[breno785au]

Don't need to know about homosexual priests to know that KJV onlyism is utterly absurd

 

[ComeLordJesus]

Anyone interested in the King James controversy needs to read "King James Unjustly Accused?" by Stephen A. Coston Sr.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Don't need to know about homosexual priests to know that KJV onlyism is utterly absurd

That statement itself is absurd since for over 300 years the only English language Bible which was deemed to be Scripture, and the Word of God, was the King James Bible (known as The Authorized Version).

And even today, when secular sources such as writers and movie producers quote Scripture, they quote from the King James Bible. Had you taken the time to search out this matter properly, you would not have said what you did.

 

[breno785au]

That statement itself is absurd since for over 300 years the only English language Bible which was deemed to be Scripture, and the Word of God, was the King James Bible (known as The Authorized Version).

And even today, when secular sources such as writers and movie producers quote Scripture, they quote from the King James Bible. Had you taken the time to search out this matter properly, you would not have said what you did.

Onlyism is absurd. To say that God requires us to only read from archaic 500 year old language and nothing else is ridiculous.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Obviously you have not researched the genuineness of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark. So your comments have little or no value. Take some time to properly study the matter, rather than believing the nonsense of modern critics.

I have read the materials on it, and I am persuaded that it is not canonical.

One reason is that the verses have been used to support false teachings, including baptismal regeneration, snake handling and drinking poison.

Additionally, the Greek of this section isn't similar to the Greek of the earlier portion.

Finally, the book's intention is to leave the reader hanging with the question, who is this man? This makes sense if the bogus section is taken out.

It is the most apparent example of the problems with the Textus Receptus/King James Version.

But, if a person is charismatic or Pentecostal, they are not going to like having this bogus section removed because it reinforces some of their doctrines.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

That statement itself is absurd since for over 300 years the only English language Bible which was deemed to be Scripture, and the Word of God, was the King James Bible (known as The Authorized Version).

And even today, when secular sources such as writers and movie producers quote Scripture, they quote from the King James Bible. Had you taken the time to search out this matter properly, you would not have said what you did.

What about the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible?

Did you known that King James commissioned the King James Version primarily to combat the Geneva Bible? He didn't like its' notes because they didn't accentuate the power of the monarchy.

A gay English king had the authority to define the Word of God for all English speaking people?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Where is the KJV overtly papal? Do you mean using the word "bishop"?

Well, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest, and he is the one who created the Greek New Testament that underlies it. In fact, he included the Comma Johanneum because Roman Catholic authorities insisted that he include it, even though the manuscript evidence was very weak.

Which is amusing because many KJVers are very anti-Roman Catholic, yet they don't seem to know that...or they deny it and claim that Erasmus was almost a Protestant

Apparently they aren't aware of the arguments that Luther and Erasmus had.

Besides, the Church of England was basically Roman Catholic at that point. That is why the KJV included the Apocrypha until almost 1700.


As far as the translation went, Puritan participants were very few. Puritans were highly disliked by the English royalty. There were a few, basically to give the illusion of ecumenism, but in reality they were a discriminated minority amongst Christians. That is why the Puritans who migrated to America did not use the KJV.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What about the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible?

What about them? There was nothing wrong with them. But what's better -- one man's (Tyndale's) translation or the translation of over 50 men (who were all godly and scholarly and had a deep respect for the written word of God)?

As to the Geneva Bible it was plainly a Calvinistic Bible, and the majority of Christians are not Calvinistic.

Did you known that King James commissioned the King James Version primarily to combat the Geneva Bible?

FALSE. It was the English Puritans -- Calvinists to the core -- who petition King James at the Hampton Court Conference to commission a new translation which would be free of all theological bias.

He didn't like its' notes because they didn't accentuate the power of the monarchy.

And I don't like its notes because it promotes Five Point Calvinism. So what? The Geneva Bible could not possibly become the Bible of ALL English-speaking and English-reading Christians because of its footnotes.

A gay English king had the authority to define the Word of God for all English speaking people?

Do you have absolute and conclusive proof that James I was a homosexual? If not you are simply bearing false witness, which is a sin.

In any event, his sexual proclivities have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the translation, since the Scriptures were not altered for his personal preferences.

What I see here is simply a straw man and ad hominem argument by those who have nothing substantial to say about the outstanding quality of the KJV.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I have read the materials on it, and I am persuaded that it is not canonical.

Guess what? You have not done your due diligence, but have swallowed the lies of modern critics hook, line, and sinker!

Did you know that both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (the primary manuscripts for modern critical texts) have BLANK SPACES in the last chapter of Mark, which would mean that the last twelve verses of Mark were DELIBERATELY OMITTED?

Before you embarrass yourself, kindly obtain a reprinted copy of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by John William Burgon (an outstanding textual scholar from the 19th century in his own right). He conclusively proved that the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine.

And just because people create false doctrines out of any Scriptures does not mean that the Scriptures are false. That is simply a lame excuse.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Well, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest...

FALSE. He may have started out going in that direction, but he was NEVER a Roman Catholic priest. Indeed he mocked the clergy of the RCC in The Praise of Folly.

"Soon after his priestly ordination, he got his chance to leave the canonry when offered the post of secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, Henry of Bergen, on account of his great skill in Latin and his reputation as a man of letters".

Erasmus was simply an outstanding scholar who was a Protestant at heart, as his plain from his biography. Wycliffe did not leave the Catholic Church, but he rejected all their nonsense also.

You are full of misinformation, disinformation, and plain old propaganda. Not a very good position for a Christian to be in. But excellent qualifications for Fake News proponents.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

FALSE. He may have started out going in that direction, but he was NEVER a Roman Catholic priest. Indeed he mocked the clergy of the RCC in The Praise of Folly.

"Soon after his priestly ordination, he got his chance to leave the canonry when offered the post of secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, Henry of Bergen, on account of his great skill in Latin and his reputation as a man of letters".

Erasmus was simply an outstanding scholar who was a Protestant at heart, as his plain from his biography. Wycliffe did not leave the Catholic Church, but he rejected all their nonsense also.

You are full of misinformation, disinformation, and plain old propaganda. Not a very good position for a Christian to be in. But excellent qualifications for Fake News proponents.

He was ordained a priest, but was never a priest?

And, he did write letters to a younger monk that were romantic-sounding. I"ve already quoted from the letters earlier in the thread.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Guess what? You have not done your due diligence, but have swallowed the lies of modern critics hook, line, and sinker!

Did you know that both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (the primary manuscripts for modern critical texts) have BLANK SPACES in the last chapter of Mark, which would mean that the last twelve verses of Mark were DELIBERATELY OMITTED?

Before you embarrass yourself, kindly obtain a reprinted copy of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by John William Burgon (an outstanding textual scholar from the 19th century in his own right). He conclusively proved that the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine.

And just because people create false doctrines out of any Scriptures does not mean that the Scriptures are false. That is simply a lame excuse.

This section of Scripture does not ring authentic. I've already made my points. The book of Mark was meant to leave the reader with the question, what kind of man is this? (talking about Jesus).

I do NOT think this section belongs in the canon.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

What about them? There was nothing wrong with them. But what's better -- one man's (Tyndale's) translation or the translation of over 50 men (who were all godly and scholarly and had a deep respect for the written word of God)?

As to the Geneva Bible it was plainly a Calvinistic Bible, and the majority of Christians are not Calvinistic.

FALSE. It was the English Puritans -- Calvinists to the core -- who petition King James at the Hampton Court Conference to commission a new translation which would be free of all theological bias.

And I don't like its notes because it promotes Five Point Calvinism. So what? The Geneva Bible could not possibly become the Bible of ALL English-speaking and English-reading Christians because of its footnotes.

Do you have absolute and conclusive proof that James I was a homosexual? If not you are simply bearing false witness, which is a sin.

In any event, his sexual proclivities have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the translation, since the Scriptures were not altered for his personal preferences.

What I see here is simply a straw man and ad hominem argument by those who have nothing substantial to say about the outstanding quality of the KJV.

It is well-acknowledged that King James didn't like the tone of the Geneva Bible because it challenged his authority. That is why he wanted a new translation.

Regarding King James, obviously I didn't see the sex acts between him and his lovers, however his writings intimated that he called one of the men his "spouse". I already presented the information on this. Would you ever use language like that about another male?

Additionally, look at his picture. He obviously looks feminine. Would you wear bloomers and pink hose like that as a male? I wouldn't.

Notable historians have the same view as myself, and they have examined his life in much more detail.

.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

FALSE. He may have started out going in that direction, but he was NEVER a Roman Catholic priest. Indeed he mocked the clergy of the RCC in The Praise of Folly.

"Soon after his priestly ordination, he got his chance to leave the canonry when offered the post of secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, Henry of Bergen, on account of his great skill in Latin and his reputation as a man of letters".

Erasmus was simply an outstanding scholar who was a Protestant at heart, as his plain from his biography. Wycliffe did not leave the Catholic Church, but he rejected all their nonsense also.

You are full of misinformation, disinformation, and plain old propaganda. Not a very good position for a Christian to be in. But excellent qualifications for Fake News proponents.

You have to remember my major point, which is that KJV Onlyists constantly bring up the sexuality of individuals who were involved with the NIV. I am simply stating that the same thing can be done with regards to the KJV translation participants.

The title of my thread is concerning double standards. You can't insist that I never bring up sexuality of the participants of the KJV, when your group brings up the sexuality of the NIV translation participants. And, this is something that is done ALL THE TIME in the KJV Only camp.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

FALSE. He may have started out going in that direction, but he was NEVER a Roman Catholic priest. Indeed he mocked the clergy of the RCC in The Praise of Folly.

"Soon after his priestly ordination, he got his chance to leave the canonry when offered the post of secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, Henry of Bergen, on account of his great skill in Latin and his reputation as a man of letters".

Erasmus was simply an outstanding scholar who was a Protestant at heart, as his plain from his biography. Wycliffe did not leave the Catholic Church, but he rejected all their nonsense also.

You are full of misinformation, disinformation, and plain old propaganda. Not a very good position for a Christian to be in. But excellent qualifications for Fake News proponents.

Yes, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. He took ordination vows.

He NEVER became a Protestant and he argued against Martin Luther continually. He believed in the same semi-Pelagian teachings of Rome and never diverted from them.

He remained with Mother Rome.

Have you ever read Bondage of the Will? It was Luther's response to Erasmus on this topic.

It is laughable to turn Erasmus into a Protestant, as he never disavowed Rome.

If I was a baptized Roman Catholic, and never disavowed Rome, would you claim I was a Protestant? NO.

 

[Dino246]

What about them? There was nothing wrong with them. But what's better -- one man's (Tyndale's) translation or the translation of over 50 men (who were all godly and scholarly and had a deep respect for the written word of God)?

… who basically quoted Tyndale verbatim in many places?

Get some integrity, and stop making ridiculous assertions that have no intellectual merit.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It is well-acknowledged that King James didn't like the tone of the Geneva Bible because it challenged his authority. That is why he wanted a new translation.

Regarding King James, obviously I didn't see the sex acts between him and his lovers, however his writings intimated that he called one of the men his "spouse". I already presented the information on this. Would you ever use language like that about another male?

Additionally, look at his picture. He obviously looks feminine. Would you wear bloomers and pink hose like that as a male? I wouldn't.

Notable historians have the same view as myself, and they have examined his life in much more detail.

View attachment 204647View attachment 204648.

By the way, just so that people don't get confused by the subtitles...Jacob is actually the equivalent of James in English. In fact, some have said (rightly) that the book of James should be titled Jacob.

Notice the frilly, feminine-looking apparel that he is wearing. Do I really need to make the assertion that there was something wrong with his sexuality?

Again, I wouldn't bring this up, but the opposition of the modern versions constantly bring this up regarding individuals with sexual issues who worked on the NIV translation. So, what I am saying is, that if you bring up those isssues regarding the NIV, it is perfectly appropriate to bring them up with regards to King James and Erasmus, whose sexuality is suspect. I am simply applying the same standards as they apply to the KJV version.

Personally I prefer the ESV, and it has none of this baggage, but I don't have a huge problem with the NIV. It is a decent thought-for-thought translation.

But, if you are ok with the KJV, even though it was commissioned by a man who called other men his "spouse" and wore pink bloomers and bloomers, more power to you

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Does anyone seriously think a heterosexual male would wear pink hose and bloomers like this?