King James, King of Bibles???

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Yeah, how dare they make more bibles. Shut 'em all down!

---

I said VERSIONS of the Bible. Why not print out a million of one Bible. Everyone has to have their own special version right? (how many denominations are there now?).

Quote:

---

Can you provide examples of how sacrifices have been made to fit a bias?

---

I could but judging by the way you twisted my last quote I feel it would be a futile endeavor.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Anyone remember that song “How you going to keep them down on the farm after they have been to Pariee [Paris]”?

Once anyone that has sat at the feet of these teachers in the seminaries that place the study of languages ABOVE the study of Gods word are in a locked in position where few can escape. Prayer & fasting may help, NOTHING else seem to work. The reason Heaven could use Willam Miller was because he ONLY studied from the bible and a Exhustive Concordance all other books were left on book store shelves. Thats still good advice today excluding the SOP.

======================================

MR No. 706 - The Study of Greek and Latin

“It is of far greater consequence that students study God's Word than that they study Greek and Latin. Yet some may carry the study of these languages with success, especially Greek, and yet not place them above the Word of God.--Manuscript 69, 1897, p. 5. ("The Bible in Our Schools, June 17, 1897.) {9MR 116.1}

---

Yes!! I wish I could have quoted this a couple times in class!! So sad when our education is allowed to puff up our ego and shield our hearts from the Holy Spirit's leading.

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I could but judging by the way you twisted my last quote I feel it would be a futile endeavor.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Wow, what a cop out. Don't try to put the blame on me for you not being able to back up your own statements.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Wow, what a cop out. Don't try to put the blame on me for you not being able to back up your own statements.

---

I have proof enough for me to feel confident in my own choice and I don't need to prove to you or anyone else why. Make your own decision. I have seen your other posts, I know that there are any number of objections you will make for argument's sake, and I don't feel compelled to do so. If that is a cop out to you then so be it. I'll keep my pearls.

[cardw]

Well, the King James was translated from the Latin Vulgate which was a translation by Jerome. To understand why the Latin Vulgate would be quite different one needs to understand that Latin is a legal language. Rome had an obsession with law and the language reflected that, where aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, does not even have a word for sin.

The King James was written so that the theology of original sin, celibacy, and the use of force could be justified.

Jerome was far from being a saint. He was obsessed with sex. Here is a small quote from him while he was in an ascetic order in a desert hermitage.

"Day after day I cried and sighed, and when, against my will, I fell asleep, my bare bones clashed against the ground. I say nothing about my eating and drinking...And yet he who, in fear of hell, had banished himself to this prison, found himself again and again surrounded by dancing girls! My face grew pale with hunger, yet in my cold body the passions of my inner being continued to glow. This human being was more dead than alive; only his burning lust continued to boil."

According to Jerome, "Marriage is only one degree less sinful than fornication."

He cultivated a following of wealthy aristocratic women with his reported purpose of promoting celibacy. For example he would write letters like the following to young women....

"Virginity can be lost even by a thought...Wash your bed and water you couch with your tears. Always allow the privacy of your own room to protect you: ever let the Bridegroom sport with you within...When sleep overtakes you, He will come from behind the wall and put His hand through the hole of the door, and will touch your belly (ventrum). And you will hear Him answer: A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed."

He spent long times in private audiences with attractive young women. His final undoing was when he convinced a 20 year old Lady Blaesilla to become an ascetic. She had a dramatic decline in her health and disposition to the point her family appealed to the pope. Blaesilla died of anorexia.

He left Rome and spent the next 35 years in the Holy Land. His last few, he lived in a cave. He convinced Blaesilla's sister Eustachium and their mother to come live with and care for him. He commanded that neither woman wash or comb their hair. He also insisted that they dress in rags.

This Jerome, with his translation of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate essentially set the tone and the choice of words for the King James. This is a translation done by one person, who was hardly considered capable of understanding Jesus' message. And this comes through loud and clear in the King James.

You need to read your history. Christianity is not a clean, God led, progression of thought. Its very, very, messy.

Richard

[David_McQueen]

Is there not a danger in trying to place one Bible version more superior than another?

Regardless of manuscripts, surely the heart of Christianity and the testimony of Jesus can be found in any version of the Bible. Just like the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptised with his limited access to scripture, or the millions who have found Christ by reading the Gideon Bibles in jails and in prisons.

With the imperfection of translation, tone and transliteration that come with various Bible versions there is no perfect one. We can argue about the gnostic, sinaitic, alexandrian manuscripts, masoretic and spetuagint texts and everything in between till the cows come home. If you are a true student of the bible will this really affect your belief?

Omissions and comissions exist in all versions. Whether Markian, Johannian, Paulian or anything else. Does it really make that much a difference if one line is missing or a pronoun is interpreted differently?

OK just in case I am missing the point, could someone from either camp tell me what salvific or other important point of doctrine is in one bible version but missing from another?

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wow, what a cop out. Don't try to put the blame on me for you not being able to back up your own statements.

---

I have proof enough for me to feel confident in my own choice and I don't need to prove to you or anyone else why. Make your own decision. I have seen your other posts, I know that there are any number of objections you will make for argument's sake, and I don't feel compelled to do so. If that is a cop out to you then so be it. I'll keep my pearls.

---

============================================

Not being a math expert but being a person with my ear to the ground I see one common denominator along all those that clutch these spurious interpretations of the bible to their breast like a security blanket. THEY ALL hate the real bible, this is no accident, it is by design!!!

======================================

David if you will compare 1 Peter 2:9 in the bible to that of mans twisting of scripture in the NKJV you will see that the wicked are being punished today just as the harlot church suggested to these hirling translators.

[Gregory Matthews]

Cardw:

Sorry, I believe you got it wrong when you said that the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome.

The most common statement is the the KJV was translated from the so-called Textus Receptus,wich is of course NOT the Latin Vulgate, and isn't even Latin. Regardless of the family of MSS used to translate the KJV, one might properly say that it was translated from the origional languages. While several are described as sources for the KJV, and properly so, Willliam Tyndale is often described as the primary source.

For interest sake, it should be noted the the KJV was described in 1789, by the Roman Catholic scholar, Alexander Geddes to be "of all versions the most excellent." I wonder how many who support the KJV know of this Roman Catholic support?

[Guest]

Gregory said this. "I wonder how many who support the KJV know of this Roman Catholic support?"

====================================

I have never been bashful in supporting truth wherever I find it, not all Roman Catholic are deceivers, many are just caught up into the system by being born into it. This Roman Catholic priest [Charles Chiniquy] that wrote the book "50 years in the church of Rome" was more honest than most of those among the professed remnant leadership. I would have attended his church at the drop of a hat.

[i have corrected a typo that I made, not Ed--GM.]

[cardw]

Quote:

---

Sorry, I believe you got it wrong when you said that the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome.

---

I stand corrected.

I should have said that the Latin Vulagate was the major translation until the reformation. It had an idirect influence in the following manner. These are the 1st four rules that were followed by the translators of the King James version.

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

So the translation was dependent on the traditions and choice of words of the ancient fathers. Augustine was probably the most influencial of the ancient fathers. He is not much better than Jerome. Here is a quote from his confessions..

"In the sixteenth year of the age of my flesh...the madness of raging lust exercised its supreme dominion over me. My invisible enemy trod me down and seduced me. I drew my shackles along with me, terrified to have them knocked off."

Augustine reasoned that because the sexual urge was so involuntary and troubling, it must be controlled by Satan. He, like Jerome, became an ascetic. At the age of 32 he had a transformative vision while in Rome. He became a prolific writer. He came up with several doctrines that heavily influeced Christianity from that point on.

He concluded that Free Will was evil. He felt that to reconcile a benevolent God with the presence of evil, free will must be the demon. In this he concluded that men could not govern themselves. The implication was only the Church could do that. He also came up with the doctrine of original sin. He reasoned that since Adam sinned, he passed this to his son through his semen into what he called "the parts of shame." Jesus was exempt from this because He was concieved immaculately. If an infant was baptised by a proper priest, at birth, through an act of Grace the original sin was removed.

Jesus never mentions the idea of original sin and He never considers sexuality as evil.

This was the keystone of Augustine's theology. There was a British theologian named Palegeus that challenged Augustine's doctrine of original sin. He came to Rome to ask that the doctrine of original sin be removed. Augustine sent spies to spread lies about Palegeus, to harm his reputation. When it came to a vote, there were riots in the streets. Augustine bought 80 expensive Arabian horses and gave them to all the key families and prominant clerics. His views prevailed. Palegeus was excommunicated for stating that men could be good without the need for infant baptism and confession. This is the source of worm theology. Augustines views are still heard today. You can hear the teaching of our utter hopelessness due to the first couple's mistake. This was not a prominant doctrine before Augustine.

So, with this in mind, it becomes quite apparent that the King James translation needed to follow, by its choice of words, a path that supported these theologies. We are so used to seeing the Bible this way that to understand it in any other way seems heritical.

The King James follows a progression of teaching that began even before Augustine. Around 190 A.D. Christians began to practice human sacrifice in a much larger scale. In Christian thought it was reasoned that God had sacrificed his son and the son had willingly given his life. Wanting to emulate Christ Christians began to volonteer for the carnage in the Roman games.

Roman proconsul Antonius was sent to Asia Minor to eradicate Christianity. He set up a tribunal and stated that if they were willing to pay homage to the emperor's divinity they could go free. To his astonishment hundreds of Christians came before him begging for martyrdom. He sent most of them home with the words, "Miserable creatures! If you wish to die, are there not ropes and precipices?" This was not an isolated incident. It was replicated throughout the conservative Roman Empire.

Anyway, thanks for the correction. I will update my references.

Richard

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I have proof enough for me to feel confident in my own choice and I don't need to prove to you or anyone else why. Make your own decision. I have seen your other posts, I know that there are any number of objections you will make for argument's sake, and I don't feel compelled to do so. If that is a cop out to you then so be it. I'll keep my pearls.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yep it's a cop out. And you continue to make your own projections. You ought to work on that. If not, keep it up and I will place you on ignore.

[DaveM1936]

Temper, temper.

First, W is sincere about wanting to use only the KJV. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. My only concern is that he accepts that fact that I beleive it does not matter what version on uses. This is not a point that will cost neither him nor I salvation. I do not think that God cares.

Your post was too harsh on him. One of my posts was also too hard on him. One of my faults is that I become defensive what I feel threatened. But this is only a feeling. When saner thoughts take back over, I know that I have allowed myself to be controlled by feelings instead of letting my mind be in control.

Your friend,

Dave M

[Pockey]

Dave, when wiklunds says: "I have seen your other posts, I know that there are any number of objections you will make for argument's sake", that to me reeks of projection because if he actually took time to read my posts he would see that was not so. Now I'm the jerk for calling him on that?

[DaveM1936]

No. You are not a jerk. I know that W and I have many differences of opinion. Being a Bible student, I usually try to have thought out answers. I try to be honest in expressing my thoughts. I do not care if people disagree with me. I sometimes react when others, instead entering into a friendly discussion, either ignore my ideas or objections to what they posted. Posts being just words, we cannot hear the tone of the voice or see the expression on the other one's face. So I am left to quess what they meant or what they believe. I am not a mind reader.

Also, the last time I looked in the mirror, I discovered that I am still human. We all have buttons. Sometimes people press then without realizing it. Other times they do it on purpose. I try to present Jesus and our need of His companionship and friendship all the time. I do not mind being called out when I am just offended.

Your friend,

Dave M

[wicklunds]

thanks for the defense Dave. Sid, I never meant to press your buttons, but you sure pressed mine with your twisting of my words. Then I went and read your other stuff and saw for myself. Why does this warrant ignoring me? You ignore who you want to ignore and dont worry about them caring. I don't care if I get ignored.

[Bravus]

usual deal: some of us make our own choices (of version in this case) and allow others to make theirs. others require everyone else to choose the same as them.

[Amelia]

Personally I dont think it makes any difference in our salvation, which bible version is used to study Gods word. There are always going to be those who read between the lines and preach out of context. God and God alone will make his words clear to you when you study, if only you ask for Him to turn the Light on.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

usual deal: some of us make our own choices (of version in this case) and allow others to make theirs. others require everyone else to choose the same as them.

---

Listen,

I will be the first to admit that there are other Bibles that are easier reading and flow better from one word to the next, but obviously the ways details are presented in the English are not the same in each version. If you read the NIV and compare it with KJV there is a large disparity in details in certain places. Would we want people in our congregations to come to blows over textual differences? Horrors, no! I would never compel someone that they MUST read my version if they would be accepted, but, how can we walk together unless there exists a simple and coherent standard to judge doctrine and practical guidance by? Tis worth a moment of thought.

[Bravus]

I think such a common standard for doctrinal points is probably attainable, but that it should be, if anything, the original manuscripts in the original languages. Making *any* English translation, no matter how good, the absolute standard seems very dangerous to me. And if there are particular doctrines we have that depend entirely for their existence on the English words chosen in one particular version, so much the worse for those doctrines. It's definitely harder work to read, understand and compare rather than to simply choose a single version and use it as the absolute standard, but it gets us closer to the original inspired words that were written.

Your perspective in all threads, wicklunds, seems to be 'diversity is bad'. I think that's worrying, because the alternative to diversity is most often *forced* conformity. If it's possible for all of us to be *convicted* by the Spirit of a particular doctrine or approach, then that's a good thing, but if we gain 'unity' through simply lopping off anyoneor anything that doesn't fit...

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

thanks for the defense Dave. Sid, I never meant to press your buttons, but you sure pressed mine with your twisting of my words. Then I went and read your other stuff and saw for myself. Why does this warrant ignoring me? You ignore who you want to ignore and dont worry about them caring. I don't care if I get ignored.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Nevermind. Perhaps I did speak too harshly. I apologize for that and for twisting your words. That was uncalled for.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I think such a common standard for doctrinal points is probably attainable, but that it should be, if anything, the original manuscripts in the original languages."

This is what is called an autograph.

None exist. Not one. None!

The only thing that we have today are copies of copies of copies of copies. . . ..

The arguements over MSS are over which copies are best. There are clear differences. Some copies are better than other copies. Some were copied with a greater attention to fidelity.

No, older copies are not necesairly better. Sometimes they ae better, sometimes they are not better.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

how can we walk together unless there exists a simple and coherent standard to judge doctrine and practical guidance by?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The nation of Israel doesnt even walk as one. And they are a lot older than we are.

[wicklunds]

And the nation of Israel never had a day of Pentecost experience either. But I guess we could say that the early church never seemed to have met together to unify over doctrinal points. But that may have been because their purpose was ever so clear after the ascension of Jesus.