Clarifying KJVO

He's one of the most interesting I've seen so far, being KJV myself... There was one fellow on another site that believed the KJV had some intrinsic magical properties, now he was somewhat strange... Enjoyed the OP Jordan, very informative!... Now if all excuse me I have to go to my tent and read my KJV... Brother Glen

 

Likely a post-1900 KJV edition with over 400 changes or differences with an actual 1769 Oxford edition.

 

You know Salty that all depends... I have palm size Holman, a large print Nelson and the big boy is my Thompson-Chain... But the one I revere the most and rarely use, is the one handed down by my great, great, great, great, great grandpa signed by King Jimmy... Brother Glen

 

Many churches now have switched over the Esv, as seems to be the preferred choice among reformed and calvinists! I like to use the esv, and the Nas/Nkjv
I can see Christians using for profit several different translation, so no problem when any of us are preferring any Greek text/translation, just no textual/biblical support to have one being the "Only" position!

 

That settles it JK, if you agree with the words above by DC you are :
Up the creek without a paddle.
Your cheese has slid off your cracker.
You're not playing with a full deck..
The lights aren't on in your belfry.
You've taken one too many hits to the head.


Take your pick.

 

How about someone who loves the scriptures, but has misguided zeal for the kjv version?

 

No, when he calls textual critics of the New Testament "out-and-out heretics, he needs to be rebuked --just as much as you do when you go on for eight years saying entirely false things about translations and translators. You and JK are standing shoulder to shoulder in God-dishonoring practices.

 

The KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette,
Proof?

All true Christians believe SCRIPTURE is our highest earthly authority in all matters of faith/worship. But the KJVO myth is NOT found in Scripture, even in the KJV itself, by the least quark of the slightest implication. Therefore, KJVO calls for a 2ND AUTHORITY to justify it.

We recently went through a whole thread over that FACT, and NOT ONE KJVO dared try to supply that authority! Therefore, we can dismiss the whole KJVO myth as FALSE. After all, it IS man-made.

 

You would have the responsibility to prove your allegations or claims to be true, not to assert that it is up to someone else to prove them wrong.

Can you demonstrate that you apply your measures/standards concerning textual critics consistently and justly?

Would a consistent, just application of your claims make the textual criticism that would be the basis for the KJV the work of heretics? Was Erasmus a heretic? The makers of the KJV made some textual criticism decisions. Would a consistent, just application of your assertions make the doctrinally-unsound Church of England makers of the KJV into heretics? Would their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration make them heretics so that you would be accepting the textual criticism decisions of heretics?

 

It is simply the fact that several of the architects of the Critical Text did not believe in core doctrines of the faith. There is really no denying it since some of them openly admitted it. That does not necessarily make their work worthless, but it does suggest that their work should be looked at with a degree of suspicion.
And if anyone needs to be rebuked it is you, since you continually blackguard your brothers in Christ and fail to read their posts properly before misrepresenting them..

 

I think the point is that Erasmus (and Lancelot Andrewes), however faulty their beliefs may have been on other matters, believed in the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. That is surely the sine qua non for a textual critic of the Bible? Also, Erasmus was prepared to go against the Church of Rome in publishing his new Greek Testament and Latin translation.

 

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

Richard Rolt wrote that Erasmus requested permission to dedicate his New Testament to Pope Leo X and that "the pope was pleased he should do it" (Lives of the Principal Reformers, p. 39). In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators even noted "that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, so much different from the Vulgate, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull." Harold Grimm confirmed that Pope Leo X “commended” the New Testament of Erasmus “highly” (Reformation Era, p. 81). David Daniell wrote that “Pope Leo X admired and supported Erasmus, and wrote of his admiration for the Novum instrumentum” (Bible in English, p. 117). Arthur Pennington maintained that Pope Leo X issued “a brief stamping authority upon it [the second edition] (Life, p. 187). Frederic Seebohm noted: “Like its forerunner, this second edition went forth under the shield of Leo X’s approval, with the additional sanction of the Archbishops of Basle and of Canterbury” (Oxford Reformers, p. 454).

Durant also observed that Pope Leo X approved of the New Testament of Erasmus and that "Pope Adrian VI asked Erasmus to do for the Old Testament what he had done for the New" (The Reformation, p. 285). Before he became the pope, Adrian had been a bishop and inquisitor-general in Spain. Rolt pointed out that Pope Adrian VI was an "old friend and school-fellow" of Erasmus (Lives, p. 78). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation stated that "the Popes, especially Leo X, had been favourable to him" [Erasmus] (p. 557). Kelley Sowards noted that "Leo's brief containing his enthusiastic and unqualified endorsement" of Erasmus's New Testament was printed in front of the second edition of it (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 76). Rolt observed that Pope Leo X and Cardinal Ximenes suppressed the books written by a Spaniard named Stunica against Erasmus and the first edition of his New Testament (Lives, p. 43). Charles Butler maintained that "the pope continued to speak both of the text and version with esteem" (Life of Erasmus, p. 175). In a letter to Henry Bullock discussing the New Testament he edited, Erasmus is translated as writing that his work “is approved by bishops, by archbishops, by the Pope himself” (Jackson, Essential Works of Erasmus, p. 275). In a letter to Thomas More, Erasmus wrote: “The New Testament is approved even by those whom I thought most likely to find fault; and the leading theologians like it very much” (Ibid., p. 264). The Dictionary of Catholic Biography noted that Erasmus "was upheld throughout his career by the popes, none of whom censured him" (p. 380). Rolt noted that Roman Catholic Cardinal Albertus and Cardinal Campegius wrote letters to Erasmus commending him concerning his New Testament, and they sent him presents (one a silver cup and the other a diamond ring) (Lives, p. 41). Sir Thomas More, who was later made a Catholic saint and who was a close friend of Erasmus, wrote three poems in praise of this New Testament (Ibid.). David Teems asserted that “this New Testament [of Erasmus] was received with applause, and by cardinals, bishops, even a pope or two” (Tyndale, p. 23). A pope did not condemn the writings of Erasmus until Pope Paul IV in the Index of 1559, over twenty years after the death of Erasmus. Thomas James asked: “Seeing his Apology satisfied the pope in his life-time, why should papists traduce him now he is dead?” (Treatise, p. xxx).

 

B. Hall claimed that in the notes of Erasmus at Romans 9:5 and Philippians 2:6, Erasmus "undermined the value of their use against Arianism, and at 1 Timothy 3:16, he argued God had been added later to make the text explicit against the Arians" (Dorey, Erasmus, p. 102). Edward Hills pointed out that Calvin opposed "Erasmus' attack on the reading God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16)" (KJV Defended, p. 204). Hills affirmed that Calvin complained about Erasmus' refusal to admit that Philippians 2:6 taught the deity of Christ (Ibid.). In his commentary on Romans, Charles Hodge noted that Erasmus proposed at Romans 9:5 "to place a full stop after the words Christ came, and make all the rest of the verse refer to God" (p. 301). Jan Krans affirmed that “he [Erasmus] even treats passages such as Romans 9:5 in such a way that a clear statement of Christ’s divinity is ‘explained away’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 116). Robert Sider wrote that Zuniga had objected to the translations of Erasmus at Acts 4:27 "on the grounds that it invited interpretations leading to Arianism" (Paraphrase on the Acts, p. 192). Richard Trench wrote: "Erasmus, indeed, out of that latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely conscious to himself, denies that, at Jude 4, despotes is to be referred to Christ; attributing only kurios to Him, and despotes to the Father" (Synonyms, p. 97). In a discussion with Farel where Farel referred to 1 John 5:7, Arthur Pennington quoted and translated the following: “’I answered,’ says Erasmus, ’that the words, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are in no ancient manuscript, and have never been cited by those Fathers who have disputed most against the Arians, as Athanasius, Cyril, and Hilary’” (Life, p. 267).

James Tracy observed that "Antitrinitarian writers found in Erasmus's critical review of biblical proof-texts used by the Fathers against Arianism a basis for repudiating the doctrine of Christ's divinity" (Erasmus, p. 189). John McLachlan pointed out that readers that applied Erasmus's "method of biblical criticism found their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity undermined" (Socinianism, p. 31). Robert Drummond maintained that Erasmus “more than once betrays a strong leaning towards the Arians, and as he interprets all the texts usually relied on in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity in an Arian sense” (Erasmus, Vol. II, p. 362). Richard Marius stated: "In some texts and notes, he [Erasmus] seemed to challenge the traditional Christian faith in the Trinity of the godhead, and he minimized the horrific old teaching that an eternally burning hell awaited the damned souls in the next world" (Thomas More, p. 238). Robert Wallace maintained that “Erasmus has given occasion, both to friends and foes, to consider him an Antitrinitarian” (Antitrinitarian Biography, III, p. 639). Richard Rolt suggested that Martin Luther accused Erasmus of Arianism (Lives, p. 81).

Will Durant maintained that Erasmus "obviously doubted the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth" (The Reformation, p. 288). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation in its article on humanism noted that the emphasis of Erasmus "on the exemplary, moral, and pedagogical roles of Christ could be developed into a rejection of the atonement or of the divinity of Christ" (II, p. 268). Alister McGrath stated that Erasmus "developed an essentially moral theology of justification" and that his view makes "justification dependent upon man's imitatio Christi" (Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, p. 58). Arthur McGiffert observed that in Erasmus’ book on Free Will, “he maintained the traditional Catholic belief that salvation is the product of divine grace and human effort” (History, II, pp. 392-393). Garrett Eriks observed that "Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation" (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, April, 1999, p. 46). He added: "A serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone" (p. 47). Arthur Pennington maintained that “we learn also from this treatise [Enchiridion] that he [Erasmus] held the meritoriousness of good works” (Life, p. 61). The Westminster Dictionary of Church History noted that "Erasmus interpreted the history of salvation as an educational process conducted by divine wisdom, in which man is led from flesh to spirit, from imperfection to perfection, from sinner to saint" (p. 305). Henry Sheldon wrote: "In place of justification by faith, as taught by the Reformer [Luther], he [Erasmus] preferred to insist that the way to salvation lies in the strenuous imitation of the graces of Christ" (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, pp. 32-33). Roland Bainton asserted that “the central point for him [Erasmus] was not, as for Luther, the doctrine of justification by faith, but the pattern of New Testament behavior, the exemplification of the Sermon on the Mount, the literal imitation of Christ” (Reformation of the Sixteen Century, p. 69). Arthur Pennington maintained that Erasmus “understood by faith in Christ, as we have already seen, the imitation of His example” (Life, pp. 307-308). He added that “we gather from various passages that he [Erasmus] considers that to be a Christian is not to be justified by faith in Christ, but to exhibit in the whole course of our life and conversation a transcript, however faint, of those graces and virtues which dignified and adorned the all perfect character of our Divine Master” (p. 308). In 1533 in his On Mending the Peace of the Church, Erasmus wrote: "Let us agree that we are justified by faith, i.e., the hearts of the faithful are thereby purified, provided we admit that the works of charity are necessary for salvation" (Essential Erasmus, p. 379). Thus, Erasmus seemed to advocate and defend the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of justification. Halkin maintained that for Erasmus, the [Roman Catholic] Church was “the regulator of faith” (Erasmus, p. 159). Halkin also noted that “for Erasmus, baptism was essential” (p. 253). Erasmus as translated by Robert Adams wrote: “Baptism is a rite common to all Christians; by it we are born again in Christ, cut off from the world, and made members of Christ’s living body” (Praise of Folly, p. 99). Robert Drummond suggested that Erasmus “had never said a word against the authority of the sacraments” (Erasmus, Vol. II, pp. 254-255).

 

Your posts suggest that you ignore a great deal of evidence so you may be guilty of what you accuse others.

You ignore, avoid, or dismiss the evidence that conflicts with your unproven KJV-only claims.

 

Do many KJV-only advocates avoid or evade the connections between Erasmus and Origen?

Peter Ruckman even acknowledged that the hero of Erasmus was Origen (King James Onlyism, p. 10). Irena Backus observed that Theodore Beza often referred to Erasmus as being "too much under the influence of Origen" (Reformed Roots of the English N.T., p. 39). Diarmaid MacCulloch referred to “Erasmus’s discreet fascination with Origen” (Reformation, p. 111). Eugene Rice pointed out that we "find Erasmus relying on the authority of Origen when he attacked Luther in 1524" (Saint Jerome, pp. 91-92). John Jortin maintained that Erasmus “declares that he found more christian philosophy in one page of Origen, whom Jerome had much studied, than in ten pages of Augustine” (Life of Erasmus, Vol. I, p. 133). John Gleason asserted that "Erasmus thought one page of Origen worth ten of Augustine" (John Colet, pp. 262-263). William Campbell wrote: “For Erasmus, Origen was first and Augustine last in preference” (O’Sullivan, Bible as Book: the Reformation, p. 104). Campbell also cited a quotation from Peter Gorday that the favourite patristic authority of Erasmus was “Origen” (Ibid.). In his Paraclesis to the N. T., Erasmus wrote: 'If you refer to commentaries, choose out the best, such as Origen (who is far above all others)" (Hexter, Traditions, II, p. 301). Leon-E. Halkin maintained that “the Paraphrase on the Gospel of St. Matthew” written by Erasmus “was strongly inspired by Origen” (Erasmus, p. 164). Arthur Pennington quoted Erasmus as writing: “With regard to commentators on the sacred volume, none will teach him better than Origen” (Life, p. 125). Louis Bouyer noted that Erasmus "showed repeatedly a strong liking for the Greek Fathers, particularly for Origen" (Erasmus and his Times, p. 149). MacCulloch maintained that Erasmus “frequently turned both to Origen and Jerome’s analysis” of Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians (Reformation, p. 110). Rummel claimed that Erasmus in his Annotations cited "Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 67). William Estep pointed out: "At the time of his last illness, Erasmus was living in Froben's home and working--as much as his waning strength permitted--on a new edition of Origen's works, a task that his death interrupted" (Renaissance, p. 92). Robert Sargent claimed that "the most influential agent in the corruption of the Biblical text" was Origen (English Bible, p. 115). What do the facts concerning Erasmus and Origen say for the spiritual discernment of Erasmus?