AV1611 Bible Forum Archive - A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)

- Doctrine (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=949)

A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist

Recently I was reading this article:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-1.html

and it states:

Quote:

"By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome."

There's ONE slight problem... King James was against papists, anabaptists, puritans, and so many denominations. That's not a bad thing of course, it rendered James unbaised (which is why the King James Bible isn't plagued with biased footnotes).

James writes in the Basilikon Doron:

Quote:

In your prayer, be neither over strange with God, like the ignorant common sort, that prayeth nothing but out of books, nor yet over-homily with him, like some of the vain Pharisee puritans, that think they rule him upon their fingers... And for keeping your conscience sound from that sickness of superstition, [which is called Morbus animi], ye must neither lay the safety of your conscience upon the credit of your own conceits, nor yet of other men’s humours, how great Doctors of Divinity that ever they be: but ye must only ground it upon the express Scripture: for conscience not grounded upon sure knowledge, is either an ignorant fantasy, or an arrogant vanity. Beware therefore in this case with two extremities: the one, to believe (with the Papists) the Churches authority, better nor your own knowledge: the other, to lean (with the Anabaptists) to your own conceits and dreamed revelations.

I have to agree with King James, the puritans thought they ruled God, the papists did everything upside-down, and the anabaptists were full of "dreamed revelations." (There were even a few that denied Christ in the flesh).

Now, King James' doctrines fully agree with the baptists today,
He writes that we are "Saved by faith" (not works):

Quote:

"But because no man was able to keep the Law, nor any part thereof, it pleased God of His infinite wisdom and goodness, to incarnate his only Son in our nature, for satisfaction of His justice in His suffering for us: that since we could not be saved by doing, we might, at least, be saved by believing." - King James, Basilikon Doron

And, all angels, visions, and "God speaking to people" has ceased:

Quote:

"...all we that are Christians, ought assuredly to know that since the coming of Christ in the flesh, and establishing of his Church by the Apostles, all miracles, visions, prophecies, and appearances of Angels or good spirits are ceased. Which served only for the first sowing of faith, and planting of the Church. Where now the Church being established..." - King James, Daemonologie

Note: God still heals and answers prayers (obviously), and the Holy Spirit can spit verses at you, BUT, God the father does NOT speak with a voice to us since the Bible has everything God needs to say (hence the Church is established).

So, I think it would be contradictory to call Erasmus an anabaptist when King James didn't heed them (then I guess he didn't like papists either to be fair). I think Erasmus was just sitting on the fence and not sure what he really believed (kind of like spurgeon).

Any thoughts? I would have only assumed the author of the article would be aware of what King James believed in, before stating that Erasmus was an anabaptist to fit his beliefs. King James himself was not an anabaptist, but he wasn't an Anglican either (the Church of England was a lot different back then through the changes Queen Elizabeth did). James was just your average ordinary Bible Believing Christian.

Quote:

By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome.

I didn't see anything that said Erasmus was an Anabaptist, nor did I see any rebuttal in your post to the idea that he might have been. The quote says that his theology was closer to that of the Anabaptists than it was to that of Rome. So is my theology, for that matter, as should be that of any Born Again Christian, but I'm not an Anabaptist.

Re: "A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist"

Aloha DevonR,

I have reviewed your Post (comments) about David Sorenson’s statements made in Chapter 10 of his Book: “Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation”, and while I agree with much of what you have said (and especially appreciate the quotes from King James) I believe that, early on (in your review of Sorenson’s statements), you reached the wrong conclusion.

Your Thread Title: “A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist” is misleading, simply because a review of the article demonstrates that no where’s in the article does brother Sorenson ever say (or claim) that Erasmus was a Anabaptist!

The article that you referred to is found on another of brother Brandon Stagg’s web pages (The King James Bible Page), and is taken from Chapter 10 of David Sorenson’s book <> “Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation”. {bold & underlines = G.A.}

Quote:

Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (Part 1 of 3)
By David H. Sorenson

This is from chapter 10 of the book Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, ISBN 0-9711384-0-0, Copyright ©2001 David H. Sorenson, used with permission. Available from Northstar Baptist Ministries, 1820 West Morgan Street, Deluth, MN55811-1878 and from Amazon.com.

[Part 1: Erasmus]

“Because the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, it is evident as Erasmus began to search the Scriptures, they had a profound effect upon his life. By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome. This will shortly be documented.”

“Reading some of the quotations of Erasmus in his later years is insightful. They reveal a man who had shifted from conventional Roman Catholic theology to one much closer to a biblical position.”

“However, what is most amazing is that in Erasmus's later years, he came very close to becoming an Anabaptist. Though he never joined with them, his theology became somewhat parallel with theirs.”

“One church historian, Walter Koehler, has gone so far as to assert that Erasmus "was the spiritual father of the Anabaptists" (22). Another historian, Leonhard von Muralt, credits Erasmus with having "prepared the way for Anabaptism and provided material for the construction of their teachings" (22). Friends of Erasmus thus warned him that he was moving dangerously close to an Anabaptist position (36).”

Brother Sorenson then goes on to document some of Erasmus’s statements that clearly indicate that he certainly wasn’t what you would call a “Typical Catholic” of his time, or, for that matter, our time either.

Quote:

“Perhaps more than anything else, Erasmus began to advocate baptism by immersion after conversion. Though this was called an Anabaptist heresy by the Catholics and Protestants, it was simply Bible teaching. The third edition of his Greek New Testament of 1522 differed from the second only in its introductory notes. There, Erasmus advocated that Christian youth be taught biblical instruction first - before they were baptized. He even advocated re-baptism for those already sprinkled as infants (45). Moreover, he came to believe that baptism was to be by immersion. In his annotations (i.e., commentary or notes) on Matthew 28, Erasmus wrote, "After you have taught them these things, and they believe what you have taught them, have repented their previous lives, and are ready to embrace the doctrine of the gospel (in their life), then immerse them in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (51, emphasis mine).

“That teaching concerning baptism is perilously close to, if not synonymous with, Fundamental Baptist theology. It certainly was Ana-baptist doctrine. Balthasar Hubmaier was an early Anabaptist leader. He essentially quoted Erasmus's statement above to establish his own point regarding baptism by immersion in his book of 1526 entitled Old and New Believers on Baptism. After having quoted the above-mentioned statement by Erasmus, Hubmaier noted,” "Here Erasmus publicly points out that baptism was instituted by Christ for those instructed in the faith and not for young children" (53). “In his annotations (i.e., commentary or notes) on Matt. 28:18-20, Erasmus also went on to write,” "The Apostles are commanded that they teach first and baptize later."

Brother Sorenson summarizes Desiderius Erasmus’s life in the following:

Quote:

“Erasmus in Summary”
“Erasmus is a fascinating character in the lineage of the Received Text of the New Testament. His Greek New Testament, without doubt, was the catalyst which sparked the Reformation. He was a Catholic at the beginning of the Reformation. However, as he continued to search the Scriptures, he increasingly became less and less Catholic in his position. By the time he died in 1536, he had virtually become an Anabaptist in his theology. To his demerit, he never officially left the Catholic Church. However, when he died, it was not in the arms of Rome. Rather, in 1534, he returned to Basel, Switzerland, and two years later died in the midst of his Protestant friends, "without relations of any sort, so far as known with the Roman Catholic Church." [9]

“To try and deflect attention from the apostasy of the critical text by pointing out that Erasmus was a Catholic reveals a lack of knowledge of who he was, what he did, and what he believed. Like virtually all of the Reformers, Erasmus originally was a Catholic. However, unlike the rest of the Reformers, he never formally left the Catholic Church. His crusade was with his pen. Accordingly, his own writings show that he changed to a position that even the persecuted Anabaptists used to support their theology. The Catholic establishment became a fierce opponent to him by the time of his death. Though not a separatist, by the time he had published the third edition of his Greek New Testament, the charge of Roman Catholic apostasy can no longer be applied to Erasmus.”

I have reproduced what David Sorenson actually said to demonstrate that nowhere in the 10th. Chapter of his book did he ever claim that Erasmus was an Anabaptist. To conclude otherwise is an error of discernment on your part. My criticism of your Thread is not meant as a reproof or rebuke; it’s more in the nature of a warning, or at most an admonition. It’s just that when someone makes a statement about what someone else has said or claims - we have to be circumspect and absolutely certain about that which we speak, otherwise people will question our ability to discern and understand issues.

As MC1171611 has said: "I didn't see anything that said Erasmus was an Anabaptist", and neither have I. In all of what David Sorenson presented in the 10th. Chapter of his book I can see no "contradiction" in his statements concerning Erasmus.

Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.

Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus. I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus.

I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people :) - indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible...

Well, it's not "his Bible," for starters. God wrote it: He just used King James to get the ball rolling just like He used Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib to do other things. Thankfully, His Majesty King James I was much more of a Bible Christian than either of those other two yahoos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 15178)

Amen to that!

King James was an extraordinary Christian, he lived a chaste life, grew his hair short, wrote amazing works, and ensured we had an English Bible; unbiased and pure! (Douay-Rheims adds volumes of useless foot notes).

What I meant was, people who don't agree with King James (like a lordship salvationist concerning works salvation opposed to only faith), why don't they use the NIV instead? Some lordship salvationists do use the King James Bible, which, seems like an oxymoron to me.
Although I suppose it's good in an odd way, any lordship salvationist DARING to quote from the KJV, I quickly quote King James on being saved by faith, it sure silences them. It's like saying, why would I use a translation from the pope?

To give this thread some more worth, here are some writings of King James that I meticiously modernized:
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts...editation.html
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts/daemonologie.html
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts...kon_doron.html
[The Basilikon Doron is patchy since I could only find varying sources - Masonic references were also added which shouldn't be there, as for Daemonologie, I'm still modernizing some difficult archaic words]

And something not seen too often, Sonnets by King James [which I didn't bother to modernize since it would take me a VERY long time]:
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts/james_sonnets.html
(They awfully remind me of Edward de Vere's sonnets and plays like Venus and Adonis, quite secular - but that's poety)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15175)

I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this)...

Please Lord, not another one... :boink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 15207)

Please Lord, not another one... :boink:

I was thinking the same thing. We got another Bible doubter.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Re: "A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist"

DevonR [quote]

Quote:

" Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.

Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus. I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus.

I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people :) - indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible..."

DevonR,

Your quote:
“Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.”

“I SUPPOSE”??? I produced enough evidence from David Sorenson’s statements to totally refute your assertion concerning: “A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist”, and all you can do is to grudgingly admit – “I suppose”? Why not own up (like a man) and admit you were WRONG? Hmmm?

Not only that, but right after your weak admission you come right back with another un-called for and unfounded attack and personal “smear” against Desiderius Ersamus – “I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus”. I don’t know what your “problem” is with Erasmus, but I do know that unless you can PROVE what you “THINK” - you shouldn’t be judging a man whom you have already have proven (by your prior allegations) that you obviously don’t know that much about!

WHY make the statement: “I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian”? Only God can judge people’s hearts [1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 44:21], so what are you doing judging another man’s heart who lived 450 years ago? [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.] WHY “judge” him at all, since you have already demonstrated that you really don’t know that much about him? Don’t you remember the Lord’s COMMAND?

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

And WHY “smear” a man who hazarded his life (on more than one occasion) in order to bring the word of God to the common man? ”if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus”. Comparing Erasmus to a “JACKASS” is not a very honorable way to treat a man whom God used – regardless of his “shortcomings” {which, by the way – We ALL Have!}

Have you forgotten that God has used “murderers” - Moses & David; “adulterers” - Judah & David; “harlots” - Rahab & Tamar; “persecutors” - Saul, i.e. Paul, “doubters” - Thomas; “disobedient” – Peter; and literally thousands more of His people (ALL of whom have been imperfect and sinful) and yet God has seen fit to use these imperfect and sinful men to fulfill His will. So the question arises - WHY are you going out of your way to castigate and vilify a man, whom God has obviously used (regardless of his obvious “shortcomings”)?

By your comments on this Forum, it’s obvious that you don’t appreciate people maligning King James (to which, I am in complete agreement with you), then WHY do you persist in maligning Desiderius Erasmus? God obviously used both of these men to fulfill His will (regardless of their “shortcomings”)

You said:
“Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus.”

WHAT do you care about “What” David Sorenson writes? WHAT concern is it of yours? God has given brother Sorenson the Liberty to follow His lead according to His word as the Holy Spirit guides him, without someone (like you) coming along and falsely criticizing what he has said, and then demanding that he write about something that you are concerned about. If you have that much concern, then you ought to write a book, or a booklet or pamphlet on the subject - but, since you have no power or authority to exercise ‘dominion” over brother Sorenson, you should seek out God’s will for your own life and not worry about WHAT another brother in Christ is doing!

Again you stated:
”I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people [IMG]file:///G:/DOCUME%7E1/GEORGE%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]- indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible...”

If that is what you believe, then “focus” on it. In the meantime I am going to focus on the Holy words of God (not a man), and not worry or concern myself with the man, whom the Bible Publisher’s named the Holy Bible after - more than 300 years after it was ONLY known as just – THE HOLY BIBLE!

The fact that you “don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this),” means absolutely nothing to most of us on this Forum (Join “The Skeptics Club”). Most modern day Christians are in complete agreement with you – so you have plenty of company. Of course, since most modern day Christians have no idea WHERE the word of God is (or WHAT it is), and since they have NO “FINAL AUTHORITY” in all matters of faith and practice, it makes it quite easy for us to dismiss whatever they personally believe - since WHATEVER they believe is determined by their personal opinions, suppositions, speculations, or feelings.

You have voluntarily joined the AV1611 Bible Forums - Guess what? We love and cherish God’s Holy words – found in the Perfect and Holy King James Bible. If you disagree with us, well fine – it’s still a free country (for a little while longer). But if, shortly after coming here, you falsely accuse, malign, and smear a man whom God used in the preservation of His Holy word – well, don’t be surprised if some of us are going to contend with you and take you to task, both for your misstatements and your critical attitude.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[QUOTE=George;15216]DevonR

Quote:

Firstly, Paul and all of the bible believers changed their ways and walked in the statures of the Lord (they were saved by faith), Erasmus was a confused Catholic that never professed being reborn and most likely died in his works salvation. Am I judging Erasmus really? I am basing an idea the best I can. Only God truly knows if he's saved or not - I never said I truly knew (but him being a Catholic, the CHANCES are low):

Quote:

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

And you misunderstood me with the donkey jest, we're ALL donkeys my friend.

Secondly, the King James DOES have errors,
http://christkeep.com/articles/patching_kingjames.html
I outlined many of them there if it pleases you to read them. Of course, I don't expect many people to understand it off the bat.
On the positive side, I wrote an article defending why the King James uses mythical creatures, I believe people are unjustly attacking it:
http://christkeep.com/articles/kjv_m...explained.html
(that famous "dan corner" who uses the NIV was making poor claims attacking the KJV, almost pathetic)

And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc), BUT, soon as I say "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," the hyper-King James brigade snaps at me and try refer to books that the JESUIT Texe Marrs praises (figure out why). The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.

You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY. English was NOT a language God created (that removes any notion of divine intervention of the translating - and the present errors make it more obvious), God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."
The KJV translators were simply extremely educated and guided by a King who walked in the ways of the Lord.

I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation, they are garbage (thus empty threats of calling me a modernist are eliminated, otherwise I'd be first to pull out an NIV), you're not going to beat Edward de Vere, King James, and all of those great translators; plus, they weren't planning to butcher the Bible.

If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy, and would be following a "modernist" doctrine on the contrary - because in King James' day, no one said his translation was perfect, this is a recent belief.

I encourage anyone to read the 1611 preface; it is very good - pity it is removed, now THAT'S what I call modernist "editing."

*sigh* We got another Mark 16:9-20 butcher; among other things. You can say what you want, but you are none other than a Bible corrector. I don't imagine you'll be enjoying your stay here on av1611.com.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Oh brother, the puppet strings are showing... :rolleyes:
He's only made 4 posts, and half of them claim the KJV has errors.

The King James Bible is inerrant.
The only "errors" are the ones you are spreading about God's Word.
I realize you are trying to defend the Bible on one hand, and that's a good thing, but unfortunately your other hand is holding a lump which contains some serious leaven, and it won't fly on this forum.
I would advise you to choose your next words carefully, or you will not last here. :cool:

Tsk tsk tsk....oh well.

Why is it that people can apparently have so much faith in so many things....but when it comes to the Bible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR

You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY.

Reminds me of another questioner...

Quote:

Yea, hath God said...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15247)

Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.

I noticed the way he positions KJV Bible believers as lazy people, then in the same sentence assumes that they have not studied the other languages. And then there is the O word... "ORIGINAL texts." (As if he had the original texts). This is both classic, and very sad.

Re: "A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist"

DevonR,

An examination of your Posts on this Thread:

Quote:

“Firstly, Paul and all of the bible believers changed their ways and walked in the statures of the Lord (they were saved by faith), Erasmus was a confused Catholic that never professed being reborn and most likely died in his works salvation. Am I judging Erasmus really? I am basing an idea the best I can. Only God truly knows if he's saved or not - I never said I truly knew (but him being a Catholic, the CHANCES are low):"

Firstly, you have conveniently left out some other saints that didn’t “fare as well”:

NOAH: One of the last things that we read about him in the O.T. is - he got drunk!
LOT: The last thing we hear about him in the O.T. is - he got drunk and committed incest!
AARON: Not allowed into the Promised Land because - he failed to obey God’s words!
MOSES: Not allowed into the Promised Land because - he failed to obey God’s words! JEPHTHAH: A Judge of Israel - Sacrificed his daughter over a foolish vow to God.
SAMSON: A fornicating Judge of Israel - who was blinded and ended up a suicide!
SOLOMON: Who wrote 3 Books of the Bible [God Inspired words] - & ended up an Idolater!
JOSIAH: A great King of Israel - ignored God’s commandment and ended up killed in battle.

Not ALL of God’s saints (although saved by God’s Grace) have always been faithful and had “happy endings” in this life! So don’t give us that “hot air” about Erasmus – some of us have lived long enough, as Christians, to see Christians (NOT Apostates or Reprobates) backslide, fail, and sometimes fall into sin and turn away from God. Not all of God’s people are faithful ALL OF THE TIME. Now, that doesn’t excuse sin in our lives, but it should make all of us mighty grateful for God’s mercy, and extremely thankful for His Grace, without which, no man would be saved.

Your quote:

Quote:

"And you misunderstood me with the donkey jest, we're ALL donkeys my friend.”

Speak for yourself – “friend”. I didn’t “misunderstand” anything! According to your “favorite” English Bible: JESTING IS “NOT CONVENIENT”:

Ephesians 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

So the question arises – what are you doing making fun of a man, whom you know so little about? Hmmm?

Your quote:

Quote:

”Secondly, the King James DOES have errors,”
http://christkeep.com/articles/patching_kingjames.html
”I outlined many of them there if it pleases you to read them. Of course, I don't expect many people to understand it off the bat.
On the positive side, I wrote an article defending why the King James uses mythical creatures, I believe people are unjustly attacking it:”
http://christkeep.com/articles/kjv_m...explained.html
”(that famous "dan corner" who uses the NIV was making poor claims attacking the KJV, almost pathetic)”

What is “pathetic” are your infantile attempts to prove that the King James Bible has “errors” in it. Just one example from your web sight will suffice (I refuse to spend all of my time dealing with Bible critics & skeptics). The following is from your obnoxious (but “cutesy”) article entitled: “PATCHING UP THE KING JAMES” (with accompanying “cheesy” picture – you must really think that you are humorous or funny):

Quote:

#2 (Exodus 6:20)
And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

Your infantile comments:

Quote:

"The highlighted text is not in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would be adulterous for one to marry their “father’s sister (against the Mosaic Law)."

WHICH “Hebrew manuscripts” are you referring to? You are aware, aren’t you, that the MOSAIC LAW was NOT in effect until at least 80 years (or more) AFTER Amram married Jochebed! They were MOSES’S PARENTS, after all! DUH! :confused: {I rest my case!}

Your quote:

Quote:

“And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc), BUT, soon as I say "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," the hyper-King James brigade snaps at me and try refer to books that the JESUIT Texe Marrs praises (figure out why). The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.”

Your quote:

Quote:

“And no, "modernist christians" do not agree with me (you'll have to try better than that), I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc),"

Can you not read? Have you no discernment? I did NOT say “modernist christians” (the term is an oxymoron) – A “Modernist” is not a Christian, and a genuine (born again) Christian is NOT a “Modernist”! I clearly said: “Most modern day Christians are in complete agreement with you – so you have plenty of company. Of course, since most modern day Christians have no idea WHERE the word of God is (or WHAT it is), and since they have NO “FINAL AUTHORITY” in all matters of faith and practice, it makes it quite easy for us to dismiss whatever they personally believe - since WHATEVER they believe is determined by their personal opinions, suppositions, speculations, or feelings.”

When I was referring to “Most modern day Christian’s” I was NOT referring to “Modernists” (who are apostates & reprobates). I was referring to “most modern day Christians”, that is - genuine, born again children of God (In these “modern days” known as “Evangelicals” or “Fundamentalists”). I try to be real careful with my words – There is a difference between a genuine Christian and an apostate or reprobate “modernist”, and I would never make the mistake of calling a real Christian (regardless of any differences between us) a “modernist”.

I’m glad that you have: “I got all of my doctrines correct (pre-trib rapture, eternal security, saved by faith etc)” – you’re the first Christian in the 50 years that I have been a Christian that has professed that openly (and I guess that you must sincerely believe it).

Your quote:

Quote:

You didn’t just state: "the King James is the BEST translation but not perfect," – You have said: “the King James DOES have errors” (Your Post #11 this Thread). There’s a huge difference between someone recognizing the King James Bible as the “best translation, but not perfect”, and someone claiming that it has “errors”. The first statement is tolerated by most genuine Bible believers; the second is a direct attack on the Holy words of God. If you cannot (or will not) discern the DIFFERENCE, THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM. It seems that you have a real “problem” with “Discernment” in many areas.

You keep carelessly slinging around your accusations (against Erasmus and David Sorenson) and then bad-mouth us all with another of your cheap “smears” by calling those of us who are genuine Bible believers as – “the hyper-King James brigade”. I guess all hyper-critics of God’s Holy word just “can’t help themselves”! Who on this forum mentioned Texe Marrs? I know of no one on this Forum who recommends or follows Texe Marrs – so what is that all about? Although I have read well over 100 books and various booklets, pamphlets, and articles in regards to the King James Bible “controversy”, I have never read anything from Texe Marrs (once again – faulty judgment on your part).

Your quote:

Quote:

“The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect. The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason... Furthermore, the preface on the KJV 1611 states that it isn't perfect and there may be errors. Lazy people who don't want to study the original texts force themselves into a shell that become reliant ONLY on the KJV, if you ask any KJV-Onlyist, they will have nowhere else to go, thus, kind of HAVE to say it's perfect, if you get what I mean.”

You wrote about “The original God-breathed scriptures (that King James himself read) are perfect.” Could you tell us which Hebrew Text King James read from? Hmmm? Oh, and while you are at it, WHICH “original God-breathed” Greek Text did he use? Was it Erasmus’s, or Stephanus’s (Robert Estienne), or Beza’s? You are aware that there are minor differences between all of them, aren’t you?

The KJV was originally a "crutch," that's why it is so easy to see the original Hebrew/Greek words - it was MADE like that for a reason ...” I get it now – All of us King James Bible believers (and all of those believers who came before us, who for over 350 years believed it to be the Holy word of God) are CRIPPLES! Our English Bible is just a “CRUTCH” for us to lean on since we don’t have the advantage of being able to read THE HEBREW (which is a language used and spoken by less than 1% of the world’s population) and THE GREEK (“Koine Greek” to be exact – which is a language that is SPOKEN BY NO ONE in the world today, and is only used by a handful of unbelieving “scholars” (scribes) to undermine God’s FINAL WRITTEN AUTHORITY on earth, i.e. The King James Bible.

Your quote:

Quote:

”You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY. English was NOT a language God created (that removes any notion of divine intervention of the translating - and the present errors make it more obvious), God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."
The KJV translators were simply extremely educated and guided by a King who walked in the ways of the Lord.”

Bible critics and skeptics are all the same – their minds are so corrupt that they no longer can think straight! God has given to his saints “the spirit of . . . a sound mind” {2Timothy 1:7] - is DevonR’s reasoning sound? When he disparages the King James Bible, because he doesn’t believe that any TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, and consequently can not possibly be God’s Holy word – is this sound reasoning {especially after God has promised to preserve His WORDS}?

Is God “limited” to just two languages (one, which is used by less than 1% of the world’s population, and the other, which is DEAD – which no one speaks)? Is DevonR serious? Does God require all people everywhere, to learn just these two languages in order to understand His word? I trow not!

Your quote:

Quote:

”You CANNOT TRANSLATE ANYTHING PERFECTLY.”

WHO SAID YOU CAN’T? CHAPTER & VERSE?

Your quote:

Quote:

“God however did create Hebrew and Greek at the tower of Babel if I'm not mistaken, Greek is very similar to phoenician - so those langauges (and during the time of apostleship) would have had some "divine inspiration."

IF DevonR were to spend the rest of his life researching the inane, sophomoric, and absurd statements that he just made – he couldn’t possibly PROVE his “assumptions”! WHY do Bible skeptics always make such ridiculous claims?

Does DevonR “think” that Adam & Eve spoke Hebrew? What about from Seth on down through Job – did they all speak Hebrew? Who was the FIRST HEBREW? Abraham was the very first Hebrew (approximately 2,000 years after Adam) – did all of Adam’s descendants speak Hebrew – BEFORE the very FIRST Hebrew showed up? WHERE is the PROOF that God created the Hebrew language? Abraham was removed from the happenings at the Tower of Babel by approximately 300 years – WHO spoke “Hebrew” all of that time? Hmmm?

And what about “THE GREEK”? DevonR’s speculation about the Greek language being “created” by God is so tenuous that it doesn’t deserve comment – except to say that DevonR’s suppositions and speculations are unworthy of someone who claims the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps DevonR could explain the difference between “SOME divine inspiration” and genuine inspiration. But, on the other hand, I’m not in the mood for more “fairy tales”.

Your quote:

Quote:

“I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation, they are garbage (thus empty threats of calling me a modernist are eliminated, otherwise I'd be first to pull out an NIV), you're not going to beat Edward de Vere, King James, and all of those great translators; plus, they weren't planning to butcher the Bible.”

Again, just for the record, no one called DevonR a “MODERNIST”! I said he fits right in with “modern day Christians”. Many, if not most, of today’s Christians (God’s children) have no idea WHAT God’s word is, or WHERE to find it – thanks to the numerous self-appointed “experts” (like DevonR), who are not only confused themselves, but are spreading their leaven throughout the body of Christ.

Your quote:

Quote:

“I would like to get something correct here, I do NOT advocate any new translation”

No, DevonR doesn’t advocate a new translation, since that might obligate him to adhere to some “final authority”. No, it’s much better (for DevonR) that he not advocate anything as his “final authority” – that way he can “decide for himself’ just what the word of God says whenever a question of doctrine comes up.

It’s always the same with Bible critics and skeptics – They have NO FINAL AUTHORITY, other than their own personal opinions, conjectures, assumptions, and feelings. And they always run to “THE HEBREW” & “THE GREEK” without ever identifying WHICH “Hebrew” and “Greek” they are referring to, so that we might critique their numerous phantom "authorities".

Your quote:

Quote:

“If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy, and would be following a "modernist" doctrine on the contrary - because in King James' day, no one said his translation was perfect, this is a recent belief."

I encourage anyone to read the 1611 preface; it is very good - pity it is removed, now THAT'S what I call modernist "editing."

After all of DevonR’s unfounded statements and accusations, he finally ends up with a parting shot at all of the genuine Bible believers on this Forum (Bible critics just can’t help themselves :() “If I said the King James Bible was perfect, I'd be lazy”. So we’re LAZY! It’s almost laughable – if it weren’t so tragic! Let’s see: From 1968 – 1988 I spent at least 12,000 to 15,000 hours studying the issue of “WHICH BIBLE”, and since then, perhaps another 2,000 hours. LAZY??? There are men (Steven Avery, Bibleprotector, John Hinton, & Will Kinney – to mention a few) on this Forum that (when it comes to this issue) can eat me up for breakfast and spit me out for lunch! LAZY – LAZY!!! Why would DevonR say such a thing – without knowing what he was talking about? :eek:

The Bible that is now known as the King James Bible was known only as THE HOLY BIBLE for around 300 years; its critics started calling it the Authorized VERSION in the 1700’s & 1800’s, but ordinary, every day Christians (the kind of men & women that the Lord ate and drank with, and dealt with) called it THE HOLY BIBLE. They believed what genuine Bible believers still believe today. Contrary to what DevonR thinks - it’s NOT a NEW doctrine or belief, it’s a belief that was nearly abandoned by Christians after they became enamored of “Education” and College degrees (after the scholars & the scribes convinced many Christians that the HOLY BIBLE was JUST ANOTHER TRANSLATION – just exactly like DevonR believes!)

I am done (for now); DevonR has proven that he is just one more Bible critic and skeptic that “thinks” that he “knows it all”, and when presented with the truth takes refuge in false statements and accusations. We all know who the accuser of the brethren is – DevonR should carefully consider what he is saying and doing. But if he is like all of the other Bible critics and skeptics that have come on this Forum in the last year, he will IGNORE everything that we have said and continue spreading his false statements and leaven.

Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Amen Bro. George, PREACH IT!!

Concerning the Texe Marrs:
https://shop.avpublications.com/prod...4b9df4b8637cf6

He praises that book concerning new age bibles

Quote:

"It may be the most important book ever written." --Texe Marrs

A fellow told me to read that book... If it's being praised by Texe Marrs, I am hesitant. But that is what I was getting at.

As for the "Original Scriptures" (yes I said it because we do have lots), you can buy the texts Tyndale and Martin Luther used (1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament: First Edition):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar.../platinum.html

It's amazing how many original texts survive, people who say we don't have any would have to be living in a bubble!
http://bibleworks.com/ <-- bibleworks has compiled all bible texts into software, as well as numerous concordances. I plan on buying that amazing peice of software in due time. Literally EVERYTHING, all translations, all texts, the ultimate bible resource.

As for the Hebrew texts, the KJV translators used the masoretic texts - any KJV supporter should know that. Jerome used them too (or something identical), the Hebrew texts are very well preserved.

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself), you can see original scans of it here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

the KJV translators used it :) (or a copy of it anyways)

ooops and I almost forgot:

Quote:

"And therefore I would not have you to pray with the Papists, to be preserved from sudden death, but that God would give you grace to live, as ye may every hour of your life be ready for death: so shall ye attain to the virtue of true Fortitude, never being afraid for the horror of death, come when he list: and especially, beware to offend your conscience with use of swearing or lying (suppose but in jest): for oaths are but an use, and a sin clothed with no delight nor gain, and therefore the more inexcusable" - King James, Basilikon Doron

King James says there is some leeway concerning jesting :nerd:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15285)

Concerning the Texe Marrs:
https://shop.avpublications.com/prod...4b9df4b8637cf6

He praises that book concerning new age bibles

A fellow told me to read that book... If it's being praised by Texe Marrs, I am hesitant. But that is what I was getting at.

As for the "Original Scriptures" (yes I said it because we do have lots), you can buy the texts Tyndale and Martin Luther used (1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament: First Edition):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar.../platinum.html

It's amazing how many original texts survive, people who say we don't have any would have to be living in a bubble!
http://bibleworks.com/ <-- bibleworks has compiled all bible texts into software, as well as numerous concordances. I plan on buying that amazing peice of software in due time. Literally EVERYTHING, all translations, all texts, the ultimate bible resource.

As for the Hebrew texts, the KJV translators used the masoretic texts - any KJV supporter should know that. Jerome used them too (or something identical), the Hebrew texts are very well preserved.

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself), you can see original scans of it here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

the KJV translators used it :) (or a copy of it anyways)

(I'll leave others to comment on your flawed knowledge of the "original texts")

Who told you that the Great Isaiah Scroll was written by Isaiah himself? Most "scholars" believe the book of Isaiah was written by 3 different people (this isn't what I believe). I'd like to see your source on this one.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15287)

King James says there is some leeway concerning jesting :nerd:

Ah, so King James is your final authority. Interesting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15285)

As for the "Original Scriptures" (yes I said it because we do have lots), you can buy the texts Tyndale and Martin Luther used (1516 Erasmus Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament: First Edition):
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar.../platinum.html

LOL, even at the offered prices of $65,000 - $2 Million, those are still translated copies!
I didn't see anything on that website penned in person by the Apostle Paul. Strike one. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15285)

It's amazing how many original texts survive, people who say we don't have any would have to be living in a bubble!
http://bibleworks.com/ <-- bibleworks has compiled all bible texts into software, as well as numerous concordances. I plan on buying that amazing peice of software in due time. Literally EVERYTHING, all translations, all texts, the ultimate bible resource.

LOL, go buy all the "software" you want, it's still comprised of translated copies. From my bubble I can tell you that any single mother, jobless tramp or curious teenager can go down and for a few bucks own today's "ultimate bible resource," it's called the KJV and it won't cost you the price of a house. Check with your local Bible-believing church, they'll probably give you one for free. That's strike two. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15285)

As for the Hebrew texts, the KJV translators used the masoretic texts - any KJV supporter should know that. Jerome used them too (or something identical), the Hebrew texts are very well preserved.

Or something IDENTICAL? You mean a copy? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevonR (Post 15285)

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself), you can see original scans of it here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

the KJV translators used it :) (or a copy of it anyways)

Well which was it man, A COPY OR THE ORIGINAL????
The sad part is, your failure to recognize the real PRESERVATION effort is not going on in some glass case or document vault where people have to pay $65,000 to own a translated copy. It's being preserved right now, today, for EVERYONE TO ENJOY AND LEARN.
Strike three... YOU'RE OUT! :cool: I tried to tell you, don't say you weren't warned.

Quote:

For the great isaiah scroll (written by Isaiah himself),

WOW! I didn't know that we actually had the autograph manuscript of Isaiah! Why didn't someone tell me?! And all this time I have been falsely chiding the "original-onlyists" about their lack of evidence. Too bad the reference that [banned] gave does not actually SAY THAT! Oh well. :( Such is to be expected of the MVer.