Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"Profaners...profaners... PROFANERS!???" What could be more profane than those who held the doctrines and practices of the CoE in the early 1600's? They made the king their pope. Taught baptismal regeneration. Baptized babies. And topped it off by making a Baptist the last Englishman burned at the stake for heresy in 1611.
I am positive that no modern translation committee is perfect but those behind the NKJV, NASB, and even NIV are much closer to our beliefs than the KJV translators... and the MV translators don't even believe that those who disagree with them in religion should be persecuted.
How did they make the king their pope?</font>[/QUOTE] They believed in prelacy. The English monarch was the earthly head of both the Church and Government. If you were really as studious as you claim, you would know this simple fact of history.
Did they believe he had the power to grant absolution for sins or any other abominable practice of the popes?
No. They never got quite as far as Rome. However, the monarch and only the monarch had the authority to condemn heretics.
As to pedobaptism, it didn't start until 1640.And where did the KJV translators teach baptismal regenration or burn baptists?
Here's the 27th of the 39 Articles (1563):
"XXVII. Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ."
The martyr's name was Edward Wightman. This website
http://www.21tnt.com/archives_sermons/englishandamericanbaptist.htm says this about him: "...Edward Wightman, the Baptist martyr of Lichfield, England, who was burned because he denounced "infant baptism."
Here's some more detailed info:
http://www.wightmanfamily.com/wgtedwrd.html
As to the modern versions, the NIV had two sodomites (admitted by the NIV committee) on the translation team and a spiritist(in the writings of the editor).
I am not a fan nor user of the NIV but none the less, please name these "two sodomites" and "spiritist". Oh, and maybe cite your sources. I have long been cautious of the NIV because of charges against the committee's members that I didn't think had fully been answered... but those you bring are new.
The NKJV had people from the ungodly NIV team,
Please name them and cite your evidence that these individuals were ungodly.
and change readings to conform to the minority/critical text and the NASB consistently perverts doctrine.
Well, Let's see...
Micah 5:2 non pre-existing Christ;
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.(KJV)
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."(NASB)
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."(NKJV)
The KJV and NKJV are almost the same other than the verb tense which is in italics in both versions and therefore assumed. The NASB while slightly different means the same thing unless you are predisposed to argue otherwise... which of course you are.
no bodily resurrection in Lk 24:40;
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.(KJV)
40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.(NASB)
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.(NKJV)
I guess when you accuse me of not studying the issue thoroughly you mean that I confuse myself by actually checking out references rather than just swallowing what some KJVO tells me then regurgitating it all over the pages of a debate forum.
no believing in Christ in Jn 6:47;
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.(KJV)
47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.(NKJV)
Are you checking any of these references out before making a fool of yourself?
And as for the NASB's "omission" of "in Me", the context makes it clear both what and who must be believed.
Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
and then the most ridiculous of translations in the margin of 2 Tim 3:16 "Every Scripture inspired by God is profitable."
I have a copy of both versions and neither of them say this.
If the Lockman Foundation gave permission to a publisher to include such a note, it would be remarkable considering the following:
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbtrans.php
http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/tlf/tlfabout.php
Glad to hear these people are closer to your beliefs. For they are as far away from the beliefs of godly men as the stars are from the ground.
You have yet to prove even a single one of them ungodly much less to impugn the whole group. You are bearing false witness by making charges for which you have assumed guilt rather than proven it.
It is amazing what a little research can discover.
Yes. Why don't you try some... maybe start by "proving" the KJVO non-sense you've been swallowing rather than just believing it blindly.
The fact that Modern Textual Criticism is based on german rationalism which is also the basis for Nazism.
Which of course is
not a fact. Lower textual criticism separated from higher criticism very early on and was a significant dividing line in "The Fundamentals" by Torrey et al.
As I stated elsewhere, once someone demonstrates that they are operating from false premises, I reject their conclusions regardless of how good they might sound.
Ready, study, and think. It is obvious that you are not doing any of these.
Really? Which one of us actually looked up the scripture references you gave above?
