Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

Without reading all 100 plus posts, has this concern been raised here?

The King James Version of the Holy Bible is what many fundamentalists believe is the only authorized gospel, the only Word of God. It was written in 1611 under the auspices of King James the First of England, a homosexual, and is used as the authority for the fundamentalist church.

Are Christians not concerned that a homosexual King authorized the Bible of all bibles??

 

This slander, that King James I was a sodomite, has been raised before, and the body of evidence to support it is seriously lacking. The evidence against it is monumental. It is also a straw man argument similar to the straw man argument against the NIV because one of the advisors regarding English style was a lesbian.

King James had nothing to do with the translation of the version which bears his name, and Virginia Mollenkott had nothing to do with the translation of the NIV.

Let's keep this discussion on an intelligent, factual, level.

 

my guess is that both had something to do w the translation.

in the one, he bankrolled the project n kept out the influence of Baptists n Calvinists as much as he cld. in the other, she had a say (at least in the initial stages) on the style of English employed.

but neither of them managed to skew their respective translations w their questionable sexual orientation.

 

Pastor Larry: In other words, it is a fallacious argument to argue that the RCC corrupted teh Alexandrain texts because they are Catholic while arguing that the Anglican translators were inspired or supernaturally prevented from error by the Holy Spirit. Both Anglicans and the RCC are essentially the same.

I'm sorry, Larry, but that's completely untrue. Why don't you go and read the 39 articles? If you have, you know that the Anglicans, in theory at least (and also in practice in that day and age) held substantially different views to the Catholics.

 

So if all those people figured out what the REAL words of God were, then why are all their versions different???!!!

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

It seems that one of the basic false premises of KJVOnlyism is the notion that only one set of words (definition #1) can accurately communicate the Word (definition #2).

No - that is your straw man. Of course different words can communicate the same thing; but many Bible versions communicate DIFFERENT things in their pages (if you don't believe me, try READING some of them!). So are we left without absolute certainty as to what God's words really are? That is what the KJV debate is about.

By asking for the "REAL" words of God, you are asking presumptively for something that God chose not to give mankind.

YOU are being extremely presumptuous in assuming that completely unprovable idea. Where is the biblical evidence that God chose not to give this to mankind? And besides, do you REALLY think he didn't give it to mankind; or that he did, and it just got irreversably corrupted? Whatever, the result is the same, and this proves my point - if you don't believe God perfectly preserved his word, it was poitless him giving it perfectly in the first place.

 

I basically asked you this question earlier in the thread, but my posts seem to get little response. Where was the REAL words of God before 1611, when there were many versions? Why is the KJV different from all of them, if the word of God already existed? (You do believe the word of God existed before 1611, don't you?)

 

Bartholomew:Where did you get that phrase "complete uncertainty"?
Ransom:There is only one work of literature known as the Bible; that is the one I am talking about.

What??? Did you REALLY mean that??? So there's the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, RV, TEV, etc.... and yet you say there's only one??? WHICH ONE???

Bartholomew:Come on. Be honest.
Ransom:After you. Please be intellectually honest and define "the Bible."

Certainly: The perfectly inspired and preserved word of God, as now found in the Authorised King James Bible. Now please tell me where your "perfectly preserved" bible is that you keep telling me you believe in. I want to read it.

Bartholomew:You don't really think this perfectly preserved bible actually exists, do you?
Ransom:Yep, it exists collectively throughout the entire set of physical copies.

So which bits of which copies? Why don't you put them all together for us so we can have an absolute authority, and we won't need this discussion?

Bartholomew:Brilliant - avoid the question.
Ransom:Nope, just putting things in the proper perspective. You're getting your blood pressure up over something someone made up. It certainly isn't in the Bible, and therefore it is no necessary part of the Christian faith.

Oh right... and this idea that God preserved his words in such a way that we could never be sure which ones really were his preserved and perfect words, and in such a way as we'd never be able to get the words of God together in one place as our final authority: THIS is biblical???

Bartholomew:At this point I'm not arguing for the perfection of the AV. I'M ARGUING FOR THE PERFECTION OF SOMETHING.
Ransom:The perfection of what? I've been up front about the KJV-only issue being a load of malarkey - what are you arguing for? Specifically.

At this point, nothing. I KEEP asking you to show me this "Bible" you keep talking about as being inspired and perfectly preserved. If you do, I will happily discuss the evidence in favour of that one, and the evidence in favour of the AV. If it turns out that the evidence in favour of your "bible" being perfect is greater than the evidence of the AV being perfect, I will come over to your side of the argument. The ONLY (yes, ONLY) reason I believe the AV is perfect is because of all the bibles I've ever heard of, the evidence that the AV is the perfectly preserved word of God seems to me much greater than the evidence that any of the others are the perfectly preserved word of God. But my mind is open. PLEASE show me your perfect "bible" and we will compare the evidence.

Bartholomew: PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.
Ransom:So ask someone who does to defend their view.

WHAT??? You want Biblical evidence that God can translate his words? Or do you want biblical evidence that he promised to preserve his word? Or do you want evidence that something other than the originals can be perfect? But of course you don't want that. You want the bible to say, "God will preserve his word in the Authorised Version", otherwise you won't even consider it. Well, God didn't say. "I will write the first book of the New Testament by a man called Matthew", and nor did he say, "The Messiah will be called Jesus". If that's the kind of evidence you require, you might as well become an atheist.

Exactly. I don't believe either, because they are both a hilarious load of nonsense, and therefore I have no reason to defend either or to provide evidence for them.

What? The idea that God DIDN'T preserve his word in one place so we could all be sure what it was is "hilarious nonsense"? Good. At last you're talking some sense.

However, that is beside the point. You said that if I believe God might have done so, you would provide your evidence. So cough up.

Sure - as soon as you show me YOUR "perfectly preserved bible", and then we'll compare the evidence for and against each of them. However, until you do, you will just try to trample all over my evidence. Well, I will not allow that until you put YOUR "perfect bible" on the table, and give me the same opportunity to trample over your evidence. Until then, I'm not going to cast pearls before swine.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Hello BrianT,

Sorry - wasn't meaning to ignore you - it's just a bit difficult keeping up with this when I seem to be the only person defending the Authorised Version.

I basically asked you this question earlier in the thread, but my posts seem to get little response. Where was the REAL words of God before 1611, when there were many versions? Why is the KJV different from all of them, if the word of God already existed? (You do believe the word of God existed before 1611, don't you?)

I'm not quite sure... but if the preserved word of God is now in the Authorised Version, it wouldn't matter where it USED to be. But anyway, I'm willing to accept that it MAY have been in the Old Latin bibles - I hear that there are 10,000 of these that are unexamined to this day. Also, it could have been preserved in some of the Greek manuscripts - nobody has examined them all (and most of them no longer exist!!!). I'm open to suggestions, but since most of these Bibles have long-since fallen apart, we can't check up the claim. So all that matters now is if God has now preserved his word in the Authorised Version.

 

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you thought about my point. Also, we defend the Authorized Version as well, we just don't defend a certain idea about it.

Maybe you don't understand my point. It *totally* matters, because the question deals with the root of the KJV-only definition of preservation. I'm not really interested in you being able to name a specific Bible, but rather to get you to realize that *any* specific Bible that existed, English or otherwise, is different from the KJV. If there was a Bible identical to the KJV before 1611, it would not have been published in 1611.

KJV-onlyism has this view of preservation that requires a word-for-word perfection, and that any deviation from these words is a corruption. If this is how we are to understand "preservation", we have two choices:

- believe that this type of "preservation" took place before the KJV was published (not just after), and that the KJV deviates because it is not word-for-word identical to anything prior to it
- deny that this type of "preservation" took place before the KJV was published, and conclude that the KJV isn't actually a "preservation", but rather a reinspiration

You see, the very type of preservation required by KJV-onlyism is the type of preservation that makes KJV-onlyism impossible! For either you have the KJV differing from the already existing word of God, or you have a perfect Bible that *requires* none to have existed before. Both possibilities are in direct opposition to what KJV-onlyism is all about.

However, if you change your definition of "preservation", you see that God's word is preserved though the collection of manuscripts and translations available. None have to be word-for-word perfect (nor can be!) to be "God's word". The KJV is indeed the word of God. But the moment you claim perfection or exclusiveness, you've created a logical paradox that ultimately denies God's word existed prior to 1611.

 

&lt; So which bits of which copies? Why don't you put them all together for us so we can have an absolute authority, and we won't need this discussion? &gt;

That's what you think a bunch of Anglican [scholars, ed.] did nearly 400 years ago [although one of these printed today looks very different than their exact product, so if the 'perfect' word has been revised that can only make it less than perfect]. Evidently the only difference between you and a Catholic is that you serve a dead pope.

[ May 15, 2002, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Christian Cynic,

The fact that you are now resorting to abusive and hateful language shows you are incapable of defending your illogical position from scripture. I will not stay around here to argue with people who talk about others like you do.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

P.S. The phrase I objected to has now been altered by Thomas Cassidy.

[ May 15, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

No. The faithful translations we have do NOT communicate a different faith or different doctrines. No sound doctrine hinges on a single verse or passage of scripture so when the versions disagree at one place, it does not follow that one version or the other is subversive.

BTW, I do read/study the KJV, NASB, NKJV, and other resources together. IF you have done so with any regularity, you would realize that they do not communicate a different message at ALL.

I have already agreed that we don't know what God's words were in the originals.

No. The debate is about whether the KJV is exclusively the Word of God in English. No one can conclude from the available evidence what the exact words of the originals were. Your assertion that the KJV is the only book worthy of being called the Word of God assumes a great deal while ignoring concrete evidence and errors of logic.

What is unprovable? That the KJV is not the same as the originals? That is absolutely provable without a shadow of a doubt.

God did not say He would preserve the original words and history confirms that He didn't. The biblical evidence is in the lack of an affirmation by God that He WOULD do it.

Are you reading the replies? This is exactly what the facts show. God inspired the originals therefore they are perfect because He is perfect. He did not choose to inspire nor superintend the copies and translations...if He did they would be uniform because He does not vary.

No. It does not prove your point. God chose to deliver His Word in a certain way. He chose to have it preserved in a different way. Just because you think it was "pointless" does not mean that God did not have His own purpose that you don't see.

I believe in preservation of the Word. I do not believe in the perfect preservation of the words. My beliefs are consistent with scripture and the historical facts.

 

That's fine with me, Thomas, Here are the FACTS and supported assertions I found. Where are yours? Btw, no one said he was a sodomite...any more than you are a phillistine. The claim is that he was a homosexual, and there are facts to support this.

But it may all boil down to what you "choose" to believe regardless of the facts and support (ie; like believeing the Bible, Koran, Boof of Mormon, etc.). And I apologize if the following history offends you, but I didn't write it.

"King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations. The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying. James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court
on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear." In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives. James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the
common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:

(references to text within the URL)
1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as little as possible.

3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation," etc. That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church — exclusively.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
All excerpts from Global Insights.

***For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David
Harris Willson, pp.36, 99; James I by his Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4, p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes MacGregor who has devoted a whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES.
In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath, pp. 170-71

The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66
James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY.
See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young
and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on amazon.com

For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are ignorant of the fact that his behavior and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. " He disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his
favorite men." ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675 "

The URL for this can be found here;

queen james

Okay Thomas......your rebuttal with support please.

[ May 15, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Barnabus Collins ]

 

Barnabus Collins what do your comments have to do with the KJV. Even if it is proved what does it prove?... Nothing! Gods book has always been attacked but guess what, "ITS STILL HERE" !... Where are the attackers?... Their childrens, childrens, children on down through history have attacked the KJV and where are they?
The KJV is still here and will continue to be here until God says otherwise.
You attack King James but look all though the Bible and see the so called perfect men in it. Did you find one?... None exist except Jesus Christ!... Show me one righteous man in any scripture in the Bible before the Lord revealed himself to him?... You won't find one! None seeked God but he sought us. He has lead us down through history and gave for the English speaking people the plenary inspired true word of God in the KJV. Since our language has not changed and it is still english then the KJV still applies. Until the language is changed it still does whether you believe it or not... Brother Glen

 

I guess we would differ on "substantially different." I realize they are different. But they are more similar to each other than either is to biblical Christianity. The Anglican church was started because the Catholic church wouldn't give Henry VIII a divorce. But that is not really the issue. The issue is that neither church is biblical and therefore it is inconsistent to attack the RCC "influence" on the MVs without attacking the Anglican "influence" on the KJV -- neither of which really exists.

 

Evidence against James being a sodomite: "Guard against corrupt leide, as book-language, and pen-and-ink horn terns, and last of all, mignard and effeminate ones." Jame's advice to his son Prince Henry. Cited by Isaac Disraeli, An Inquiry into the Literary and Political Character of James the First, London, 1816.

"But especially eschew to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like . . . and make not a fool of yourself in disguising or wearing long your hair or nails, which are but excrements of nature." Basilicon Doron 1599 page 133.

James was a family man who fathered 9 children with his wife Anne. At the time of Anne's death, James wrote, "Her to invite the Great God sent his star, whose friend and nearest kin good princes are, who though they run the race of man and die, death serves but to enhance their majesty. So did my Queen from hence her court remove, and left of earth to be enthroned above, she's changed, indeed, for sure no good prince dies, but like the sun sets only for to rise." King James VI & I, D. H. Wilson, Holt Company.

"When you are married, keep inviolably your promise made to God in your marriage, which all stands in doing of one thing, and abstaining from another, to treat her in all things as your wife and the half of yourself, and to make your body (which then is no more yours but properly hers) common with none other." Basilicon Doron, 1599.

"There are some horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such as witchcraft, willful murder, incest, and sodomy . . . " Ibid

Next, let's deal with your so-called "evidence." All of your quotes have exactly the same source. Sir Anthony Weldon, a disgruntled office seeker who did not make these assertions until 25 years after the death of James during the "Protectorate" of Oliver Cromwell, when the Royal family had no way of protecting itself against slander and was, in fact, in exile in Europe. He slandered James in his memoirs because James chose Buckingham as his minister over Weldon. So, Weldon, in retaliation (and safe from procecution by the royle family) accused James and Buckingham of being sodomites and that was the real reason James chose Buckingham over Weldon. It couldn't have been that Weldon was a fool, and idiot, and so inept that he couldn't even manage his own household, and that Buckingham was was of the best political minds of the day!

Every single allegation has been a rehash of Weldon's slander.

The evidence to the contrary from James' writings and life mitigate so strongly against the charge as to make it clear the preponderance of the evidence indicates James was a hetrosexual who loved his wife and was faithful to her.

However, lately (in the past 50 years) it has been popular for militant homosexual apologists to attempt to identify major historical figures with their perverted life style and have attempted to drag such famous persons as Alexander the Great, Shaka Zulu, James I, and even William Shakespear to their side of the issue. Don't be fooled by the revisionists with an agenda.

And, again, it has nothing at all to do with this discussion board, which is about Bible Version/Translation. Let's stick to the topic.

 

Quote, Thomas Cassady

"However, lately (in the past 50 years) it has been popular for militant homosexual apologists to attempt to identify major historical figures with their perverted life style and have attempted to drag such famous persons as Alexander the Great, Shaka Zulu, James I, and even William Shakespear to their side of the issue. Don't be fooled by the revisionists with an agenda"
How true, everyone is rewritting history to fit their point of view.

 

Funny how a thread entitled "Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!" is now 10 pages long and shows no sign of slowing up.

 

Bartholomew: ...the Anglicans, in theory at least (and also in practice in that day and age) held substantially different views to the Catholics.
Pastor Larry: I guess we would differ on "substantially different." I realize they are different. But they are more similar to each other than either is to biblical Christianity.

Perhaps here isn't really the place to discuss it; but I really do think you are wrong to say the Anglican church was much closer to the Roman Catholic one than it was to biblical Christianity. That is true of much of the Anglican church now; but not soon after its foundation. The 39 Articles, which outline its official beliefs, are very far removed from most ideas of Roman Catholicism, e.g.: They deny purgatory; teach salvation by grace through faith; teach that ALL that is neccassary for salvation is in the Bible; deny the appocrypha is cannocical; teach that the bread and wine of communion are symbols; teach believers were individually predestined to salvation; etc. etc. etc. Now I don't agree with everything contained therein (e.g. the sentence that says infant baptism should be retained), but I don't know how you can say they were closer to the Catholics than to Biblical Christianity. That is simply untrue.

Anyway, don't you think the Catholics would have been more likely to have changed their "bibles", since they thought tradition was more important than the word of God, than Anglicans, who took it as their final authority (though they got things wrong)?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew