Clarifying KJVO

[Jordan Kurecki]

Erasmus’ work was rejected by the Catholic Church. His books were castigated and burned throughout Europe.

In England, Erasmus’ writings were publicly burned in May 1520.

In France, the Sorbonne burned French translations of Erasmus’ work that had been made by Louis de Berquin. On April 17, 1529, Berquin himself was burned at the stake.

In Spain, Reformers were called “Erasmistas.”

In 1535, Emperor Charles V made it a capital offense to use Erasmus’ Colloquies in the schools.

On July 1, 1523, the Belgium inquisitors burned two of Erasmus’ acquaintances in Brussels.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.

It was a Catholic apologist who made the famous statement, “Erasmus planted, Luther watered, but the devil gave the increase” (Smith, Erasmus, p. 399). Thus, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize Erasmus as a friend but as an enemy.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

While it is true that Erasmus was weak, he is the exception rather than the rule in the lineage of the Traditional Text. The modern version defenders who make an issue of Erasmus need to take a closer look at their own field. Modern textual criticism is founded upon the writings of hundreds of men more unsound in the faith than Erasmus. The influential names in the field of textual criticism include UNITARIANS such as Johann Wettstein, Edward Harwood, George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, Joseph Thayer, and Caspar Gregory; LIBERALRATIONALISTS such as Johann Semler, Johann Griesbach, Bernhard Weiss, William Sanday, William Robertson Smith, Samuel Driver, Eberhard Nestle, James Rendel Harris, Hermann von Soden, Frederick Conybeare, Fredric Kenyon, Francis Burkitt, Henry Wheeler Robinson, Kirsopp Lake, Gerhard Kittel, Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, Kenneth Clark, Ernest Colwell, Gunther Zuntz, J.B. Phillips, William Barclay, Theodore Skeat, George Kilpatrick, F.F. Bruce, George Ladd, J.K. Elliott, Eldon Epp, Brevard Childs, Bart Ehrman, C.H. Dodd, Barclay Newman, Arthur Voobus, Eugene Nida, Jan de Waard, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Allen Wikgren, Bruce Metzger, and Johannes Karavidopoulos; and TRADITIONALIST ROMAN CATHOLICS such as Richard Simon, Alexander Geddes, Johann Hug, and Carlo Martini. For documentation of the theological position of these and many other men in the field of modern textual criticism see “The Modern Bible Version’s Hall of Shame,” available from Way of Life Literature.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

To raise the issue of Erasmus as a means of discounting the theological liberalism that is an intimate associate of modern textual criticism is to strain at gnats and swallow camels (Mat. 23:24). Those who do so strain at the gnat of Erasmus, who was admittedly weak in the faith but was also an exception in the field of the Received Text, and swallow the camel of the fact that theological modernism, skepticism, and unitarianism is THE RULE among the fathers of modern textual criticism.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

Exactly! I’m glad someone is willing to be honest about the point I am making rather than arguing with red herrings.

 

[Logos1560]

Modern textual criticism is founded upon the writings of hundreds of men more unsound in the faith than Erasmus.

see “The Modern Bible Version’s Hall of Shame,” available from Way of Life Literature.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

I’m glad someone is willing to be honest about the point I am making rather than arguing with red herrings.

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

 

[Logos1560]

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

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).

 

[Rob_BW]

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

 

[TCassidy]

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

This is what I call the Matthew 6:7 syndrome. "for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph copied and pasted from a web page in the hope that it will be too long to be read and the reader won't notice it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Logos1560]

As to the KJV Translators believing in baptismal regeneration, Even if this were true,.

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).

 

[TCassidy]

The 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England.


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 the 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.

 

[robycop3]

Bottom line of all this discussion is:

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

Therefore, the KJVO myth is false.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

The 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England.


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 the 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.

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...

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly! I’m glad someone is willing to be honest about the point I am making rather than arguing with red herrings.

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?

 

[Rippon]

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.

Start another thread with your pathetic lies y1.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Rippon]

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.

 

[Rippon]

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'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.