Originally posted by Glory2God:
[QB] Strange,
Both your profiles say your "in transition" concerning a church. Your replies do not surprize me at all. By the posting rules, neither of you should even post(Not that I care)
Which rule are you referring to? I know of no such rule that says you have to currently be an official member of a Baptist church, only that you have to be a Baptist. Produce the rule I am breaking, and I will immediately stop posting in the "Baptist only" sections of this board. If you can't, I suggest you try to focus on the issues and not the people raising them.
How about some proof on your claims on Erasmus?? I'm not afraid!
I didn't think you were afraid. I
do think you have a huge problem with double-standards and determining relevancy though.
To answer your question, I have been attempting for some time to find the exact source of all of the following quotes:
"If it is Christian to hate Jews, then we are all good Christians."
"The apostles also refuted pagan philosophers and the Jews (who are by nature the most obstinate of men)" (A Declamation By Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, chapter 53)
"Spain is not pleasing" because it had too many Jews, and England was not pleasing because it had to many riots. (written sometime in 1517).
"Erasmus was not just describing contemporary anti-Jewish hatred; he shared it. Erasmus had a ‘deeply rooted, unbounded hatred for Jews." (Milton Lindberg, discussing Erasmus in one of his books)
But what does it matter? All men are imperfect. All men are sinners. Without direct proof that Erasmus's views on
anything affected which readings he chose, it's all pointless and irrelevant. Heck, even the KJV translators persecuted and
burned people at the stake who would not accept the Anglican church as the only true and authoritative church. You wanna point fingers? If so, then 1. You have to point finger at virtually
everybody in the history of the Bible, and 2. you have to explain what relevance it has to the texts themselves.
Let's assume for a moment that the article you link to was entirely true, and entirely provable, and entirely undisputed. So what? Pick up the NKJV and show me specifically,
from its text itself where and how Kittel's supposed associations and views affected the wording in the NKJV. If you can't, keep your irrelevant hot air to yourself.
But at least you're more interesting than most.