Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

[Mocking You]

And Moses struck the rock twice. You have a point?

Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".

How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

non sequitur

 

[everready]

Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".



non sequitur

That's slander Mocking You.

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

everready

 

[Mocking You]

That's slander Mocking You.

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.

<snip>

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

everready

Jack Chick tract website? Really? The people that put out comic book tracts? That's your scholarly source for King James not being gay?

It so happens there are a series of seventy-five letters that King James wrote to his gay lovers that are in the British Library system. These letters are quite graphic and leave no doubt that King James was a homosexual. His first affair was when he was 13 years old and his lover was a 37 year old, Esme Stuart.

All the lurid details are in a book written by an English professor: "King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire" by David M. Bergeron

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Le...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426282979&sr=1-2

https://books.google.com/books?ei=Y...Desire&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Esme+Stuart

 

[everready]

Jack Chick tract website? Really? The people that put out comic book tracts? That's your scholarly source for King James not being gay?

It so happens there are a series of seventy-five letters that King James wrote to his gay lovers that are in the British Library system. These letters are quite graphic and leave no doubt that King James was a homosexual. His first affair was when he was 13 years old and his lover was a 37 year old, Esme Stuart.

All the lurid details are in a book written by an English professor: "King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire" by David M. Bergeron

Links:
http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Le...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426282979&sr=1-2

https://books.google.com/books?ei=Y...Desire&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Esme+Stuart

Is David Bergeron Jesuit trained?

everready

 

[john w]

Yes, my point is that since King James was gay, you get a lousy translation of 1 Cor. 6:9. Instead of it clearly condemning homosexuality you get a convoluted phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind".



non sequitur

It's irrelevant. Moses struck the rock twice.

What are your qualifications? Had any bad thoughts today? Save it-it's a rhetorical q.

Show us what the criteria is, for avoiding " a lousy translation."


Save it-it's a rhetorical request.


How do you know, that the scribes weren't living in San Fran, or were not lushes/drunks?

Since they were, you get a lousy translation/copying-errors.


See how that works, engager in sophistry, and humanism?

 

[kiwimacahau]

Sounds like the both of you are Jesuit trained.

everready

So because w disagree and can back it up with facts we are Jesuits? Doesn't take a lot to be one in your world does it?

 

[Mocking You]

Is David Bergeron Jesuit trained?

everready

I doubt it. He's a professor at the University of Kansas.

The 70+ letters that King James wrote to his lovers can be seen in British museums. They are a matter of public record. The fanciful story from the Jack Chick comic book store you cited of vengeful detractors making up stories about King James --irrelevant and fabrications.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Who 'ordained' them? Other homosexual faggots from Oxford and Cambridge.

The Anglican Church was completely taken over by Jesuits and homos almost 50 years before Hort and Westcott.

The last honest (non homosexual) Anglican ministers were probably Scrivener and Dean Burgon,
and they were hounded out and/or politely ignored throughout their distinguished scholarly careers.

The first thing the new breed did once the last real Christians in the CofE died,
was to legalize sodomy.

Hort? Romanist infiltrator.

Westcott? Foolish homosexual.

Ordained ministers? Yes: by Satan.

Do you mean scholars like the closet Lesbian who wrote the introduction to the NIV?


In their own words:

"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] 'I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. ' http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/woudstra.htm

The "as far as I know" escape-clause is laughable.

Everybody knows she and her friends were chosen because they were homosexuals.

You are a liar. Plain and simple. You lie about Westcott and Hort and about the Anglican Church. There is no honesty in you.

 

[Nazaroo]

You are a liar. Plain and simple. You lie about Westcott and Hort and about the Anglican Church. There is no honesty in you.

The Anglican Church is going straight to hell.

I don't want you to miss this message.

They abandoned the Gospel of Christ over 140 years ago,
when they began mutilating the Holy Scriptures
at the suggestion of heretical homosexuals bought off by the Vatican.

Because you defend these heretical perverts,
and even the Anglican Church too,
there is no honesty in YOU.

God abandoned the Anglican Church when
they removed the Common Book of Prayer, and the 39 Articles of Faith,
and the King James Bible from the pews,
thus sealing their destruction.

Good riddance.

Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.
God is even now preparing the Lake of Fire for all of you homosexual evil-doers,
and corrupters and perverters of the Holy Scriptures of the Living God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth.

Jesus is coming in the Clouds to destroy you.

Beg the mountains to fall on you and hide you.

Repent and believe the Gospel,

or have your name struck out of the Book of Life
for striking out the words of God from copies of the Holy Scriptures.

God is even now raising up Muslim armies to serve the Beast
and the False Prophet Mohammed, and the Lying Spirit of Satan,
to call all unbelievers to the field of Ar Maggedo.

I'll be watching from the clouds as God destroys you once and for all time.

Repent while you still have a few precious moments left.

 

[kayaker]

I doubt it. He's a professor at the University of Kansas.

The 70+ letters that King James wrote to his lovers can be seen in British museums. They are a matter of public record. The fanciful story from the Jack Chick comic book store you cited of vengeful detractors making up stories about King James --irrelevant and fabrications.

I appreciate the direction of your claim that 1Corinthians 6:9 did not fully illuminate ‘homosexuality’ being King James was gay. It is interesting this topic was similarly mentioned in the OT in Leviticus 18:22 KJV, and Leviticus 20:13 KJV. Had King James at age 13 today been a student in local middle school and had sexual relations with a 37 y/o teacher, I seriously doubt King James would have been charged with molestation, although it’s doubtful King James’ behavior would have been any different later in is life. The point of 1Corinthians 6:9 seems abundantly clear. Do you propose King James’ sexual persuasion influenced any other aspect of the KJV translation?

Let’s take another look how translation impacts discernment of improper sexual relations.

Genesis 9:22 NIV Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.

Was Ham a gay voyeur?

Genesis 9:22 KJV And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

“Nakedness of his father” has significant meaning in the KJV illuminating Ham’s deed not discerned in the NIV.

Genesis 9:22 KJV correlates well enough with Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. These related verses clearly illuminate the truth, in my mind at least, to the specific nature of Ham’s deed in the KJV. This correlation cannot be discerned in the NIV from Genesis 9:22 NIV. Therefore, the curse of Canaan being the progeny of son-mother incest, contrary to Mosaic Law, fades even further into the translational abyss.

If I may be so bold, all translations that similarly dilute Ham’s deed, as the NIV in this case are insufficient for discerning the truth regards the event in Noah’s tent. Translations similar to Genesis 9:22 NIV translational dilution include the NLT, Holman Christian Bible, Standard Bible, ISV, NET Bible, GOD’S WORD Trans., Douay-Rheims Bible, USCCB Catholic Bible. Those translations, which maintain the KJV discernment, include the ESV, NASB, KJB, Jubilee Bible 2000, KJ 2000 Bible, AKJV, Darby Bible, ERV, Webster’s Bible Trans., Word English Bible, and Youngs Literal Trans.

The event in Noah’s tent is no small OT matter in my fallible theology. But, I don’t perceive significant translational dilution in 1Corinthians 6:9 in any translation, respectfully. All translations depict homosexuality regardless of the use of the word. The truth that homosexuality is incongruent with Mosaic Law is quite clear; I hear no dilution of the truth. In the case of Genesis 9:22 NIV, truth is entirely misdirected. I prefer the KJV.

kayaker

 

[kiwimacahau]

You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

 

[Nazaroo]

You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Whatever comes to pass,
THAT is what the LORD has spoken.

The LORD will defend me.
I will wait upon Him.

The Living God, the LORD God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth
is able to save, and able to defend His own Holy Scriptures.

Regarding all the "beautiful cathedrals and churches",
even as in the time of King Herod, many gazed and admired the work.
But Jesus said, "Not one stone shall be left one on top of another."

So as it was in the days when the FURY of God struck down the Temple of Jerusalem,
so it will be in these days when the FURY of the LORD again destroys
all the Church of England's buildings, empty of loyalty but full of ill-gotten wealth.

 

[Dialogos]

i don't see this as a game, maybe to Westcott & Hort it was a game.

Westcott & Hort

Did not believe in a literal heaven.
Did not believe in the literal second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
Did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth.
Did not believe in the reality of angels.
Denied the Trinity's oneness.
Doubted the soul's existence apart from the body.
Did not believe in a literal Devil.

First of all. Wescott and Hort have been besmerched in KJV only circles for a good long time now and it is coming to light that many of the quotations that are used to sling mud at them are dishonestly handled.

For example:

Both Chick and Ripplinger shamefully misquote Wescott. Here is one shameful example.

False claim #1: "Writing that his father had a lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism," the son of famed biblical Greek text editor B. F. Westcott admits to considerable public alarm at his father's activity." (Jack Chick, Battle Cry, July/August 1993 issue)

This combination of claim and quote comes from the July/August 1993 issue of "Battle Cry", the newspaper put out by Jack Chick. The quote above still appears on Chick's website at the time of this writing. Similarly, Gail Riplinger writes "Westcott's son writes of his father's lifelong "faith in what for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism. . ." " (Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, p.407). The context is from where Westcott's son discusses Westcott's short-lived involvement in the "Ghostlie Guild" when he was a young man still in university (see James May's article and Robert L. Sumner's article for more information), and the entire paragraph the quote is lifted from is as follows (bold added):

"What happened to this Guild in the end I have not discovered. My father ceased to interest himself in these matters, not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism, but because he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good." (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.119)
There are several problems with the claim as made by Chick and Riplinger. First, and most importantly, notice that the quote had "want of" (lack of, e.g. Psalm 23:1) chopped off the front.. Westcott did not have "faith" in Spiritualism, he had "want of [(lack of)] faith" in Spiritualism. Secondly, it was one of two reasons he ceased to interest himself in the the matters the Guild was involved in, shortly after it was formed (notice Chick and Riplinger both falsely use the word "lifelong"). Thirdly, nothing in the quote (or surrounding material) even hints at "public alarm", let alone "considerable" or even Westcott's son admitting such. Chick's claim is completely fabricated, and the quote he chopped to support his claim actually says the exact opposite when the context is examined. The entire quote is somewhat difficult to parse as it stands, but it's easier to breakdown if viewed as follows: "Westcott ceased, not altogether (not entirely) from want (lack) of faith in Spiritualism, but also because such investigations led to no good." Was the reason that Westcott ceased due to want (lack) of faith in Spiritualism? Yes, but it was "not altogether" the reason - it was also because "he was seriously convinced that such investigations led to no good".

(Source:http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_newage.html)

:nono:

Shameful.

Both Jack Chick and Gail Riplinger need to repent of their dishonest use of sources.

I am fine with the lives of these two men being put up to scrutiny just so long as the criticisms are honest.

The problem is that Chick and Riplinger have been quoted and re-quoted so many times that people don't even know they are passing along misinformation.

It is hard to imagine, after reading what these two men believed, how any Christian that espouses the fundamentals of the faith could align himself with the likes of these two characters.

First, given that Chick and Ripplinger have proven that they are willing to dissemble in order to attack these two men, I wouldn't trust a single word about what they have to say about either Wescott or Hort.

Second, this whole argument is a logical fallacy to begin with.

However, every person choosing a modern version over the King James Bible does just that.

This is seriously like saying, "Jehovah's witnesses like icecream so no self respect Trinitarian would ever go to Baskin Robbins. Everyone one who does is aligning themselves with the Jehovah's witnesses."

Wescott and Hort didn't write the Alexandrian Codices, they just preferred them to the TR in terms of their assessment of reliability, mainly because the texts that underly the TR can't be any early than 10th century manuscripts while Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are 4th century texts.

My coming to the same conclusion doesn't align me with Wescott and Hort anymore than preferring the KJV aligns you with the Mormons.

The King James Bible New Testament comes from the Majority Text (that is, from those manuscripts that agree with each other and are most prevalent.)

No it does not!

The KJV comes from the 5 works of Erasmus, the 4 works of Stephanus and the wors of Beza.

The KJV translators had less than 15 Greek manuscripts to work with and the total number of ancient texts underlying the KJV is likely much less than 25 and I use the term ancient loosely because it is likely than none of them predate the turn of the 10th century.

If you read my post to AMR, you will see that there are places in the KJV that clearly do not represent the majority text. In fact, they don't even represent a minority text. There are places in the KJV that have absolutely no Greek witness whatsoever.

The number of Greek texts that stand behind some translational choices = 0 in some places.

Unlike the translators of 1611, Westcott and Hort rejected the Majority Text and relied heavily on the Alexandrian manuscripts which included the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

Yes, because they are much earlier.

These two men regarded the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as authoritative, yet these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone.

Textual variants are not only present between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The KJV differs form the Majority Text in about a thousand places.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Hmm <crickets>

 

[kayaker]

You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Take a look at my post #150 to Mocking You on the bottom of page ten, then. What sayest thou, Kiwi?

kayaker

 

[Daniel1611]

You are a liar. THe Anglican church has never removed the BCP or the 39 Articles ; Westcott and Hort were not homosexuals and were certainly not any form of Catholic. The KJV is an inferior translation. Further, you would not know the truth if it bit you upon the sit-upon.

Inferior to what? A translation like the NIV done by homos and unbelievers?

 

[everready]

Heresies And Blasphemes Of Westcott & Hort

Heresies And Blasphemes Of Westcott & Hort

From their own mouths.

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

 

[kayaker]

The troof is in the pudding, folks. And, the truth is greater than the sum of all knowledge. The truth is greater than translations, while some translations get closer than others, and other translations take us farther. We can eloquently argue translations from every angle, but the truth in God's Word is timeless. I proffer the closer to the truth in a translation, the farther from 'church' we get. And, this notion resonates with Matthew 8:19 KJV, Matthew 8:20 KJV. We all hunger for the truth... I hereby testify that I do quite well the the KJV. I don't see this happening with many translations.

So, what about you Chrysostom? I've already pointed out the USCCB Catholic Bible falls more than short translating Genesis 4:23 KJV. The USCCB Catholic Bible falls short translating Genesis 9:22 KJV. These are two very significant disparities. Maybe you can point out significant disparities in the KJV?

I've personally heard plenty regarding the character and sources of translators. Quite illuminating. But the truth remains in the pudding. Mock You at least threw a little steak on the barbie...

kayaker

 

[kiwimacahau]

From their own mouths.

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

everready

David Stewart is merely repeating the lies others have spouted. Further not one thing he says is correct because the quotes are cribbed or details are left out. Try Westcotthort.com

 

[kiwimacahau]

Inferior to what? A translation like the NIV done by homos and unbelievers?

Proof please, not simply innuendo. Pony up with the proof.