The Cambridge Declaration
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That is a good argument for some flexibility about manuscript traditions, and it does illustrate that the KJV used an incomplete text for the OT.
And here I am adding to the derail.
The author seemed it appropriate to address basic principles in previous chapters.
The Geneva Bible has outlived the KJV. The Vulgate has outlived the Geneva Bible.
The KJV is a translation of the Bible. Do you disagree?
You do realize that Moses and Paul did not write in KJV English. if English language historians, linguists, and classical philologists are correct, then Early Modern English, what we call KJV English or Elizabethan English did not exist in the first century. The early church functioned without a KJV.
If you want to argue the manuscript tradition the KJV came from is better than some other one... that the criticism methods give more credence to poorer manuscripts that outnumber the better ones because they were preserved in a drier climate, fine. But it doesn't make sense to argue that one translation is the only one. It is just a translation of something else... something he early church had and the apostles wrote, a manuscript tradition of those writings.
The idea that the KJV was inspired is not part of the 'faith that was once delivered to the saints' that Jude talks about. This type of KJV-onlyism that treats a certain translation late in history as THE BIBLE and not a translation, is foolish and stupid. Sorry, but it's the truth. It's just plain ignorant.
At least the people who thought the LXX was inspired had a story about 70 men working independently to translate it all the same to make it sound miraculous. The apostles quoted from it, too. The KJV has gone through revisions. So why hold to this illogical, irrational belief?
It seems likely that this is just gay propagandists, trying to find someone to add to their list of people for gay history.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/erasmus-the-hero/erasmus-was-not-gay/index.html
A translation can be the pure word of God.
First of all, the King James Bible has NEVER been “revised”. By this I simply mean that the King James Bible’s underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed in over 400 years. When doubters speak of the alleged “thousands of changes” in the various editions or printings of the King James Bible, what has really changed is the type font from Gothic print to the Roman type, the spelling of many words like sinne to sin, and doore to door, Goe to go and hee to he. The spelling has been modernized, but the text itself has never changed.
I had a conversation once with a blonde-haired expat in Thailand who ran a ministry. He'd been raised independent Baptists, but had become non-denominational. He grew up there, so he really spoke Thai well. He had a meeting with other missionaries. One of them was a KJV-onlyist who spent his time teaching ESL classes with the intent on teaching people English well enough so that they could understand KJV English so they could understand the word of God. This man got upset with him and said his church sent him to Thailand to preach the Gospel, and instead, he was teaching ESL to these people, and basically accused him of misusing those churches evangelism donations.
Fortunately, one of the independent Baptist missionaries I met in Indonesia-- where the independent Baptists had formed a denomination ironically to conform with national requirements-- was not a die hard KJV onlyist and used the local translation.
SIL/Wycliff was doing some translating out of the NIV back in the 1990's. That seemed a loose translation to translate out of into local languages, but these peoples did not have Bibles in their own languages. I suspect a lot of the linguists with them weren't brought up through the Greek and Latin classical philology line of linguistics. One SIL woman I met had her doctorate and knew Greek, though, but she wouldn't have know all the target languages. I wonder how many countries really had Bibles translated right out of the KJV. Back when that was pretty much all their was and there were no language scholars available, maybe that made sense. Another missionary who'd been instrumental in winning much of a 200k tribe was translating the Old Testament using English translations and other tools. I hope the people-groups are open to correction of their translations later, because it would be hard to get it right going from English to a foreign language, but considering it is from Greek and Hebrew, that adds another layer of complexity.
Fortunately, one of the independent Baptist missionaries I met in Indonesia-- where the independent Baptists had formed a denomination ironically to conform with national requirements-- was not a die hard KJV onlyist and used the local translation.
SIL/Wycliff was doing some translating out of the NIV back in the 1990's. That seemed a loose translation to translate out of into local languages, but these peoples did not have Bibles in their own languages. I suspect a lot of the linguists with them weren't brought up through the Greek and Latin classical philology line of linguistics. One SIL woman I met had her doctorate and knew Greek, though, but she wouldn't have know all the target languages. I wonder how many countries really had Bibles translated right out of the KJV. Back when that was pretty much all their was and there were no language scholars available, maybe that made sense. Another missionary who'd been instrumental in winning much of a 200k tribe was translating the Old Testament using English translations and other tools. I hope the people-groups are open to correction of their translations later, because it would be hard to get it right going from English to a foreign language, but considering it is from Greek and Hebrew, that adds another layer of complexity.
Thanks for sharing and God bless those trying to reach the lost to the uttermost. I highly disagree with anyone trying to teach English to a group for the sole purpose of reading the KJV.
God never promised to preserve His word in every language, but that the gospel would go out unto all the world.
Do you think the word of God in Greek and Hebrew ceased to be God's word when the KJV was translated?
Do you think the word of God existed in Greek and Hebrew for it to be the subject-matter to be translated into the KJV?
What do you think happened to the word of God in Greek and Hebrew after it was translated into the KJV?
The only way a copy can be better than the original is if the original no longer exists or is in such poor shape that examining it would destroy it.
True.
Not true. A difference of wording does not necessarily require that only one is correct. This is another bad argument that doesn't support the KJV anyway.
Psalm 12:6 has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the KJV. The analogy doesn't even hold; dross is removed from the same gold each time it is purified. Words were added to produce the KJV.
The process that led to the KJV was not Tyndale to Coverdale to Great, etc. The KJV was copied almost verbatim directly from Tyndale in many places, in accordance with the king's direction.
Further, your list only has seven versions, which means it could only have been "refined" six times.
The whole KJV-Psalm 12 connection is utterly bogus. It's anachronism at its finest. Really, you need to stop using such bad arguments. You haven't provided a single argument in this entire thread that is sound, and valid, and actually supports the KJV.
I believe it was accurate.
If you read the letters he sent to the guy, who was a younger monk, they were definitely romantic-sounding.
King James was definitely engaged in same-sex relationships, though. He would kiss his lover in public and called him "his spouse".
Most KJVers will deny that, though, because although they claim similar things about the NIV contributors, they don't want to apply the same standards to the KJV contributors.
Do I think that Erasmus or King James' sexuality affected the translation negatively? No...
Do I think that the two gay individuals on the NIV translation board affected the translation negatively? No...
What I do think is that people who hold particular doctrines are bad about applying one set of principles to themselves, and another to those who hold the opposite view.
The issues regarding the use of the Septuagint in the NT are very interesting.
When I learned about them, as I pored through the NT in detail, I was actually shocked but in my view, in those cases, the Septuagint had better manuscript evidence than the Masoretic text.
Wow! You saw this firsthand? Here are the facts:
One of the King's bitterest enemies was Anthony Weldon. He had been excluded from the court of King‚ James and had sworn vengeance. Twenty-five years later (1650), after James had died, Weldon wrote a paper alleging James to be a homosexual. Obviously the King could not defend himself. But even then there were enough people still alive who knew King James and knew this accusation was not true. Therefore the rumor died.
In his book "King James Unjustly Accused" Stephen A. Coston Sr. states on page 287 "No less than three contemporary and professional historians (Sanderson, Heylyn, and Wood) sharply disagreed with those who hinted of James over fondness for male favorites. The testimony of these three, and the host of other men I have cited cannot be ignored, yet is ignored by those critical sources who seek to paint James as a homosexual."
Do you know how many children James and his wife Anne had together? EIGHT children. Only three of them reached adulthood, the other five died at birth or within the first year or two. This is all documented on pages 78-79 of King James Unjustly Accused.
This malicious allegation of James being a homosexual has been largely ignored until more recent years when it has been picked up by those who have tried to discredit the King James Bible.
One example occured in 1985 when MOODY MONTHLY published two articles about King James: "The Real King James" by Karen Ann Wojahn and "The Bible That Bears His Name" by Leslie Keylock (July/August, pp. 87-89). Although the writers could furnish no documentation, this "Christian" publication, when requested many times, refused to investigate or print the other side of the story.
If King James was a homosexual then he may have been the first one history to write passionate love letters to his wife who bore him eight children, and to have written a serious commentary on the book of Revelation in addition to a devotional entitled "Meditations on the Lord's Prayer".
In 1603 James wrote the following to his wife Anne:
"...I thank God I carry that love and respect unto you which, by the law of God and nature, I ought to do to my wife and mother of my children. . . For the respect of your honorable earth and descent I married you; but the love and respect I now bear you for that ye are my married wife and so partaker of my honour, as of all my other fortunes... Where ye were a king's or cook's daughter ye must be all alike to me being one my wife."
The fact remains that nowhere in history is there any documentation of King James having been a homosexual, only rumors and allegations.
if you think this is true why was erasmus a monk then? catholics believe you cant be gay and saved. or atleast they used to believe it. so why would he continue being a monk if he was gay? i havent read his letters though so i dont know what he said
More nonsense from the guy who is constantly posting nonsense. The Septuagint is a corrupted translation of the Hebrew Bible, and included all the non-canonical books which are NOT Scripture. As to all this rubbish about King James, Christians should be ashamed of themselves that they would stoop that low just to smear the King James Bible.
the apostles used a corrupted translation of the hebrew bible? they quote the septuagint. proof is here:
Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"
look up that psalm in the septuagint, thats where it is, they were quoting it. in hebrew bible its not like that, here is the psalm in our bibles:
Psalm 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
I have not read the primary sources accusing King James. One of the things I did not care for in the article defending Erasmus I posted was the fact that it made such a point of saying Italian young men who performed sexual acts with older men to pay their dues once weren't gay. Or is still a sin either way. If a kan does tgdoes the aresenokoites and malakos sexual stuff that is what is immoral, not struggling with same sex attraction. If a man indulges in those sins and marries and gas children what he did was still sin.