Clarifying KJVO

You fail to prove your claim to be true. You ignore, avoid, or try to dismiss actual facts concerning Erasmus and his unsound views.

I have read David Cloud's book and other of his writings, and you fail to demonstrate that David Cloud uses consistent, sound, just measures/standards. David Cloud would also strongly condemn Calvinists yet his KJV-only position in effect has to accept blindly the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of Calvinists such as Stephanus, Beza, and the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV. There is plenty of evidence of unjust measures or double standards in KJV-only claims.

I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Greek text so your allegations against its makers do not answer nor refute my scripturally-based position. You do not demonstrate that I advocate acceptance of any theological liberalism.

Perhaps you in effect throw out the red herrings since your allegations against textual critics do not prove your non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning to be true. Instead of making any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for your KJV-only position, you throw out negative allegations. Perhaps David Cloud uses the fallacy of false dilemma as he tries to get others to accept an unsound KJV-only position by trying to demonize what he suggests is the only alternative.

 

Are you in effect trying to suggest that any believer who disagrees with your negative allegations and your unproven opinions is not being honest?

 

Jordan, have you read the book Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament in which Jan Krans examines the textual criticism practices of Erasmus?

Jan Krans provided evidence that Erasmus did sometimes follow what would be later called the principle of the harder reading (pp. 40-50).

Jan Krans asserted: "With all the evidence presented here, we conclude that Erasmus understands and applies the principle of the harder reading in an astonishingly 'modern' way" (Beyond What is Written, p. 50).

According to what consistent, sound, just textual measures, does KJV-only reasoning advocate acceptance of the readings added to the TR editions from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate, acceptance of minority readings, and even acceptance of conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?

 

I will only observe that at the time that Thomas Bilney read Erasmus' NT, which may have been as early as 1517/18, it had been banned in Cambridge. The Latin translation undermined two pillars of Romanism: first, the sacrament of penance (Mark 1:15 etc.) and secondly, Mariolatry and indulgences (Luke 1:28).

 

If I wanted to read walls of text from David Cloud on wayoflife.org, I would visit wayoflife.org.

 

Have you not studied and examined the actual doctrinal views held by the makers of the KJV?

The Church of England kept the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Article XXVII of this church's Thirty-nine articles implies this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine is stated more plainly in the Catechism of this church and in the baptismal service of the Liturgy, which pronounces every child after baptism to be regenerated (The Creeds of Christendom, p. 639). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that the Book of Common Prayer preserved the traditional Catholic teaching concerning baptism (p. 127). Booty's edition of The Book of Common Prayer--1559 stated: "It is certain by God's Word that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (p. 283). Edmund Calamy observed that the ministers ejected or silenced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity maintained that the Book of Common Prayer “teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon” (Nonconformist’s, p. 39). Charles Spurgeon observed that "in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can express it,--you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to make it easy for men to go to Rome" (Jenkens, Baptist Doctrines, p. 136).

In the article on Anglicanism in The Encyclopedia of Religion, it is noted that in this church "the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered generally necessary to salvation" (pp. 287, 289). Edward Hiscox quoted Karl Hagenbach as saying the following: "The Church of England taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, yet with cautions" (Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, pp. 482-483). D. B. Ray pointed out that the Church of England "inherited from her mother the doctrine of baptismal salvation" (Baptist Succession, p. 364). He also observed that "Baptists regard baptismal salvation as one of the main pillars of popery" (p. 223). In the book entitled Heresies Exposed complied by William Irvine, it is stated: "Baptismal Regeneration belongs to Rome and unfortunately found its way into the Church of England Prayer Book" (p. 32). In his fundamentalist Way of Life Encyclopedia, David Cloud noted: "The Anglican Church practices infant baptism, teaching that infants receive the Holy Spirit and are regenerated through baptism" (p. 25). In his pamphlet "Baptismal Regeneration and Bible Salvation," Dennis Costella also acknowledged that the Church of England holds "the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration" (p. 3). Gail Riplinger condemned other Church of England scholars for their “Anglican heresy of infant baptismal regeneration” (Hazardous, p. 580), but she skipped over the fact that the KJV translators held this same view.

In one sermon in 1615, Lancelot Andrewes referred to Christ’s baptism as “Christ’s christening” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 53). Dorman commented: “For Andrewes, the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism” (Andrewes, p. 127). In a sermon, Andrewes noted: “By Him we are regenerate at the first in our baptism” (Ninety-Six Sermons, III, p. 191). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation observed that Andrewes taught that "the means of grace are the sacraments" (I, p. 42). Raymond Chapman referred to the “sacramentalism” of Andrewes (Before, p. 11). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church pointed out that Andrewes "held a high doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasizing that in the sacrament we receive the true body and blood of Christ and constantly using sacrificial language of the rite" (p. 61). Dorman maintained that “for Andrewes, to receive Christ’s body at the Eucharist is the most wonderful and important thing that we do during our earthly pilgrimage” (Andrewes, p. 2). Trevor Owen also noted that Andrewes in his book Responsio declared that his church regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 35). MacCulloch described Andrewes as a ceremonialist and sacramentalist (Boy King, p. 213).

 

Bottom line of all this discussion is:

***THE KJVO MYTH IS NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER.***

Therefore, the KJVO myth is false.

 

You still fail to see that the PRIMARY job of the translator is to get over to the reader what the intended meaning was when penned down, and not what he/she thinks was meant, or adjusted for modern cultural understandings, such as in feminism.

 

Baptismal Regeneration is not a Baptist doctrine, as it violates the clear teaching of the scriptures concerning how a lost sinner becomes saved by the Will and Grace of God...

 

I know that you see the Critical Greek text as being inferior and not to be used, how do you see the Majority text than?

 

Start another thread with your pathetic lies y1.

You are way off-topic when the subject matter here is KJVO.

 

Why do you keep saying lies, when many scholars see the agenda driving behind some of the revision going on today in translations?

 

Ah hem, your lies about any translation is what you can do of a thread of your making.

Stick with the subject matter of the OP here.

 

I've never heard the term blackguard before.

Y1 has the history of quoting entire posts of mine and others and not addressing any of the subject matter. That's a fact.

I know it must be difficult for you, but the subject of this thread is KJVO.

As I told y1, if you'd like to start another thread on a topic of your choice do it there. This is not the place.