Spread of the "Only" Sect

Andrewes has been called the "chairman" of all the translators, and he had a part in the choosing of many other of his fellow translators.

The reference work LITERATURE CRITICISM FROM 1400 TO 1800 noted: "Around the time he took up his Pembroke mastership, Andrewes began to emerge as a leading and outspoken member of the Anglo-Catholic Arminian party" (Vol. 5, p. 17). THE DICTIONARY OF LITERARY BIOGRAPHY also noted that Andrewes was "the spiritual and intellectual leader" of the movement that has been called Anglo-Catholicism, high churchmanship, or English Arminianism (Vol. 172, pp. 4, 6).

 

Many scholars think the Vulgate was used as a type of "tie breaker" when disagreement occurred with a manuscript or was used when no manuscript background was available. There is too much agreement in wording. The same thing with the Bishop's. There are too many exact passages to not think that the KJV is not an updated Bishop's Bible.

 

Thumper
"Jeromes Vulgate was not the first Vulgate"
"
True it was in fact the third time a Bible got that designation.

"but was in fact a translation made by the Roman Catholic Church and called the "Vulgate""
"
Technically speaking the Roman Catholic Church did not exist prior to the great schism in the year 1054. That's 6 centuries after Jerome started translating. Still it was a pope (Damasus) who asked his secretary (Hieronimus/Jerome) to make that translation.

"(ie:"common" or "poor" I think is what Vulgate means)"
"
Vulgate (more proper Vulgata) comes from the Latin word Vulgatus, it means commonly known. In the early centuries the term used to be attached to whatever Bible was in common use. Both the Septuagint and the older Latin translations were known as the Vulgata at one time. What we now call the Vulgate is simply the last Bible that got that description attached to it.

"in an attempt to make people think that it was the original Latin Vulgate."
"
The first couple of centuries after it's introduction Jerome's vulgate was known as the 'editio nostra'.
We know that it was a rather well known project at the time, among other things because Augustine of Hippo Regis (living at a considerable distance of Jerome) had some doubts about the way Jerome approached the translation (Jerome translated from Hebrew texts for his Old Testament and prior to that all OT translations into Latin had been done from Greek translations of the OT). They wrote letters to eachother about it (copies of those letters still survive).


"And that the original was partly used by the KJV translators."
"
Certainly not.

 

I don’t think you are a dope dear brother and I don’t believe anyone else does either.

You are probably referring to the Old Itala translations which although having a Traditional Text flavor to them they often differ wildly from the Greek and even among themselves.

The KJV translators had little good to say of them but promoted the Latin Vulgate of “Saint” Jerome.

This is partially true thumper, the KJV is based upon the Traditional Text which shares the commonality of the Byzantine family of texts as opposed to the Alexandrian. However many earlier documents and papyri indicate both kinds of text were present very early in time (particularly p66, p75) and the accuracy of neither (Byzantine or Alexandrian) can be proven without a doubt for the most obvious reason: we don’t possess the originals. Personally, I side with the Traditional Text and do not accept the Wescott and Hort hypothesis (earlier is better, shorter is better, more difficult is better) as a criteria of selecting variants but prefer Burgon's Seven Tests.

Well then which revision/edition of the King James Bible is the real thing seeing that the AV1611 vs. The AV1769 differ in several hundreds of places?

Several of the KJV translators died before it’s publication. Was this a sign from God?

Also the fact that the Church of England held to and practiced romish ritual before, during and after the publication of the King James Bible has been well documented here on the BB, just invest some time in scanning research and you will see that this is true.

HankD

 

No one had to "force" it on me. </font>[/QUOTE]AA, if you'd learn how to read, and I know that might be hard in your case, you'd see I was referring to the people of the 1600's. Do you ever really read the posts before you respond?

 

Quote:It's a fact that most people did not automatically accept the KJV as a valid translation. It was forced on them.


A_A:No one had to "force" it on me.

Thank God that you have that freedom of choice. Many British of 350 years ago and the peoples Britain ruled had no such choice.

 

Maybe you might want to reconsider the comparison of some Anglican sinners (all men) with that of God's Word. God's Word will surpass that of men's qualifications at anytime.

 

No, Thumper, you were either indoctrinated by the poison you listen to, be it in "church", on radio, on television, or by the poison you have read, as you haev posted some of the authors that you have read. But you most definately have been indoctrinated, brainwashed, hoodwinked, swindled, lied to...well, just fill in the blank.

How do I know that you have? I indoctrinated myself in the same way growing up, but with evolution since I believed that God was just a fairy tale. You sound a lot like I used to. Scary, huh? I just hope that you wake up a lot sooner than I did.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Amen to that, Trotter!

 

KJVBibleThumper...

I believe you might be well-served if you took the time to actually study the origins of the current KJVO doctrine. I'll give you a little heads-up to get you started. You're obviously an intelligent young man, but I don't expect you to learn overnight what I've learned in thousands of hours over the last 23 years. But with the power if the 'net at your fingertips, you can learn a lot in a short time.

The origins of modern KJVO began with an error-filled book published in 1930, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST preacher-teacher-official. Before this time, there was only an occasional comment by some cleric or professor little-known to the public-at-large...and it really didn't pick up much steam in the '30s & '40s. However, in 1955, a man calling himself J.J.Ray published God Wrote only One Bible, and with the help of modern media, this book was distributed over most of the USA. This book is largely a copy of Wilkinson's work, including repeats of many of his errors. Then, in 1970, along came Dr. David Otis Fuller, who published Which Bible? first edition 1970. With the full power of TV and radio available, he was able to reach a lot more potential readers. Problem is, his book COPIES MOST OF THE ERRORS OF WILKINSON AND RAY!

I've been talking about errors...what are some of them? First, Wilkinson misapplied Psalm 12:7 to the preservation of God's words. Here's an article presenting many of Wilkinson's errors...
http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_wilkinson_incred.htm

You can verify the veracity of the points in this article for yourself, as I have, by reading Wilkinson's book and comparing his assertions with the info found in various encyclopediae and other reference works. Wilkinson's book is readily available on the net.

Another little error...Wilkinson referred to a debate between Calvin and Arminius. I'd like to have heard that debate. Arminius was born in 1560, while Calvin died in 1564. Who was the moderator? Sponge Bob Square Pants?

OK, anyone, including you or I could make such a mistake, right? But what makes THIS one look so bad is that RAY, FULLER, AND GAIL RIPLINGER ALL REPEATED IT! That shows the amount of research THEY did!!!!!

Ray gave next to no acknowledgement to Wilkinson for his work. (Apparently, Wilkinson, who lived until 1968, didn't care.) And Fuller even went so far as to try to conceal Wilkinson's SDA affiliation!!!

Please take time to read all three of the books I mention above...and check out their points for yourself. I've done so, in an honest attempt to find some truth in the KJVO doctrine, and have come up with just the opposite. Please note that Ray gives very little acknowledgement to Wilkinson, but if you've read Wilkinson's book, you'll see there's not a lotta difference in his and Ray's work. Please note that Fuller actually attempts to CONCEAL Wilkinson's cult affiliation, while giving credit to RAY!

Thus, the whole current KJVO myth was born in misinformation and OUTRIGHT DISHONESTY. This is easily verifiable by yourself! As a Christian, do you REALLY wanna defend a doctrine with such dubious roots?

The works of those three men established the "party line" which almost all KJVO authors of today follow and repeat, with some embellishments of their own added. A glaring example of such lemming-like blind following is the Psalm 12:7 thingy. What makes this look so bad is that there are MANY OTHER VERSES OF SCRIPTURE WHICH CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY PROCLAIM THAT GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD!!!!!!! The KJVOs do NOT need to twist the meaning of a verse to prove God has preserved his word. Besides that, ALL Christians believe God has preserved His word. The KJVOs misapply this verse to try to say God preserved His word ONLY IN THE KJV, totally ignoring the fact that the AV TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES indicated they believed V7 was about PEOPLE , as their marginal note indicates.

KJVBT, I hope this gets you started. When you see just how dishonest and convoluted the origins of KJVO are, and that the modern authors carry on that same incorrect party line, I believe you'll drop the whole KJVO myth like a bad habit.

Now, this is NOT an attack upon the use of the KJV. If you wish to continue to use only the KJV, fine...but I hope it'll be from personal preference, NOT a dishonest, non-Scriptural, man-made false doctrine, and that you chuck the theory that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

 

Well put, Robycop3.

 

Very well said, Cranston. Not that I think it will do much good, as Thumper is too full of himself and his pet poison to actually read anything a non-KJVO suggests, much less do so objectively.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter, he's a child. Give him some time. He'll grow out of it if he will honestly study it in an ope and honest way.

 

Nice try Roby, I hope it works.

What you've suggested reminds me alot of a book I read on how to break through JW brainwashing. You have to show them that the Watchtower is dishonest or else they will always refer back to "Rule #1: The Watchtower is always right."

KJVO's do the same thing. They shut the facts out and simply accept the human authority that taught them their false beliefs about the KJV.

 

I hope KJVBT and others new to Christianity in general will grow in their knowledge of God and his word and realize my (and your) anti-Onlyism opinions didn't just occur one day, that they're the product of a careful search for the truth. Plainly, KJVBT has read only one side of the story, and right now follows the KJVO "party line" I mentioned in a previous post. If he takes the time to see BOTH SIDES of the issue, I believe he'll come around once he sees the TRUTH. He seems to be a smart young man, and most importantly a CHRISTIAN.

 

I hope so, Tony. The problem is, Thumper has that "teenage" disease...he knows everything. Plus, his posts come across as a little arrogant and full of himself. I know he is a kid, but he is almost full-grown. I have always believed that when someone steps into a man's place, he should be treated as one.

Thus far Thumper hasn't been willing to look at anything objectively, much less open and honest. He prefers Ripplinger and the like, as opposed to anyone who might speak against KJVO.

Thumper's main problem is the same one I had. I just pray that God is able to get Thumper's attention a lot easier than He did mine.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I'll tell you what, Trotter, I used to be KJVo, and I preached it for years. It took years of research, prayer, watching and learning to see the error of the KJVo (militant) position. I was bothered when I finally came to the knowledge of the truth concerning the situation, and was very disappointed in those who had preached to my family that position.

I too hope that KJVBT comes to realize you have to study both sides, not just one, or it's not honest study. I've been praying for him. Us older ones had to learn the hard way...I pray he doesn't.

 

AVL,
I used to be KJVO also after reading Riplinger and charts that showed how the other versions "deleted" passages. I was easy prey because I was ignorant of how we got out Bibles and "how" God preserved it. I took the time to look at the other side to "show" my friends that they were wrong and they had not seen the charts and books that I have, but the more I studied I finally came to the realization that KJVO is false.

May God continue to open blind eyes...

 

I, too, for a brief time, was KJVO. Similar to Southern's journey, I am no longer.

 

I don't mean to sound harsh. Really I don't. I guess I am drawing conclusions based on what I have seen and read thus far. But I cannot forsee the future, so I really don't know.

I do pray for Thumper, that he might lay aside his presuppositions and actually look to see what the truth really is.

My hang-up was not KJVOism (in its strictest sense), but evolution vs. creation. Same situation, though. I would only consider my side, and discount the other. God had to take me the long way around to open my eyes. I just don't want to see a bright young man like Thumper have to go there.

In Christ,
Trotter