Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality

One of the common claims regarding the NIV translation is that it is contaminated because two participants in the translation were apparently gay.

These two participants are Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott.

I will leave it to you in regards to their specific roles, but Mollenkott was a contractor and she aided as an English stylist. My understanding is that when her lesbianism became public, she was not engaged anymore as a contractor.

Here's where double standards come into play, though.

The Greek New Testament used as the basis for the KJV was created primarily by Desiderius Erasmus.

It is a matter of record that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote letters to a young monk called Servetius Rogerus. These letters contained remarks that definitely sound like an attempt to initiate a romantic relationship.

I invite you to read the letters themselves to gauge this for yourselves.

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/e...-was-not-gay/the-servatius-letters/index.html

Additionally, King James VI and I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, engaged in similar suspicious relationships with other men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

Now, whether these men were involved in actual homosexual acts is a matter of dispute. Some will claim that the language of Erasmus, for example, was normal for men of that time. I don't think it was, and the quotes I have seen sound like an attempt to engage Servetius in an intimate relationship, which was rebuffed by him. I don't think these letters were written in the context of normal male companionship.

Regardless of whether they were or not, though, it is indisputable that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. This is interesting to me because frequently KJVists will express very anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.

Regarding the English royalty, historians are pretty confident homosexual relationships were being engaged in.

What is my point?

My point is this: KJV Onlyists employ argumentation toward the NIV participants that could be applied to the KJV participants. Do I think the KJV was a bad translation for its' time, and the limited manuscript evidence Erasmus had? NO. Erasmus was a humanist, which means, in essence, that he enjoyed working with original documents. I am confident that he did a great job with the information that he had (except for the Comma Johanneum, which I believe he succumbed to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church to include from the Latin Vulgate).

However, the KJV Onlyist is content to argue that the aforementioned individuals, Woudstra and Mollenkott, softened the NIV with regards to sexuality.

I am not the biggest fan of the NIV. Personally, I like the English Standard Version. However, I am able to see clearly that KJV Onlyist argumentation is faulty, because they are taking one standard, and applying it to the NIV, and failing to apply the same standard to the KJV. This is hypocritical.

Like I mentioned, I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version). The NASB is fine, and so is the NKJV. All are in contemporary English. I like the NIV as a cross-reference, and my favorite study Bible is only available in NIV (Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible).

However, I'm not a big fan of the KJV. This is mostly due to the language and the NT textual basis, but if I wanted to sound like a KJV Onlyist, I could claim that I don't like it because the underlying Greek text was compiled primarily by a gay Roman Catholic priest, and it was commissioned by a gay English king.

But, I know God works through flawed people (that's the only kind there are).

Much of the other logic regarding their claims toward the NIV are equally faulty. It would take some time to go through all their claims, though. I would suggest the book KJV Only Controversy by James White in this regard.

Additionally, I am not commenting on the salvation of Erasmus, King James, Mollenkott, or Woudstra.

God used the pagan prophet Baalam to speak to ancient Israel, so he can use non-believers sometimes too.

My major point is that the standards of one's opponent should be applied to them, in order to determine where they are applying double standards.

Additionally, in many discussions with KJV Onlyists, you will find that the assumption is that the KJV is the standard, and not the original manuscripts or the manuscript evidence. This assumption needs to be identified and addressed. The KJV/Textus Receptus is not the standard. The absolute standard is the original writings. We don't have those, but we have manuscript evidence.

The methodology of the underlying Greek of modern translations involves the assumption that older manuscripts are closer to the original writings. We have much more manuscript evidence of an older nature than Erasmus had. He worked with about ten manuscripts of a much more recent nature whereas we have about 6000 manuscripts of much older nature.

Erasmus didn't even have a complete copy of the book of Revelation in Greek, so he had to create portions of Revelation by translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek.

You don't think you're going to get fair-minded reasoning and logic from a KJV-onlyist, do you? Fallacies are their specialty.

What is Comma Johanneum?

be careful of batman james whitelie and his robin jeff 'thumb-ring' dirtbin.

thats a calvinist duo. i wonder if they haev something in common with eramus and king james? hmm.

1 John 5:7-8.

The Erasmian version came from the Latin Vulgate. There was only one Greek manuscript for it, and it was very late (1400's). It's pretty obvious it was a forgery by the Roman Catholics to support the Trinity in one verse.

I guess Matt 28:19-20 wasn't enough for them.

Since I'm Reformed, I would disagree with that.

By the way, both have children. James has at least 2, and Jeff has 3. James White was married by an early age He promotes early marriage to avoid sexual immorality.

Some KJVer I know told me James White was gay. I am not sure where in the world he got that from, but KJVers are not above slanderous remarks.

They fail to mention that Kent Hovind has spent time in prison, Peter Ruckman claims the CIA operates alien breeding facilities and that black and elderly people have implanted brain transmitters courtesy of the CIA, and that Gail Riplinger only has degress in home economics and interior design yet thinks she's capable of textual criticism.

Hilarious

And..that's only the beginning of Peter Ruckman's kooky claims.

These guys are three top advocates of KJV Onlyism.

The merits of Bible translations should be examined on the basis of the actual content -- not people who may or may not have sinned or done something unrelated.

When we critique the critics and scholars behind modern bible versions, we must examine whether or not their theories regarding manuscripts and translations are sound or not. F.H. A. Scrivener and John William Burgon were the leading textual scholars of the 19th century, and this is what they had to say about the manuscripts (Aleph, B, C, and D) which support the modern versions:

It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus (Plain Introduction Vol 2. pp. 264-265). Burgon added: And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens – in vastly different degrees – of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance that they were long since recognized as the depositories of readings which rendered them utterly worthless...

B and Aleph having been demonstrably ‘executed from one and the same common original’ are not to be reckoned as two independent witnesses to the text of the New Testament, but as little more than one... The one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other [Aleph] after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical correctors, eventually... got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the convent at the foot of Mt. Sinai... The task of laboriously collating the five ‘old uncials’ throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half-years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. (The Revision Revised, pp. 30,255, 319, 376).

Note: Aleph is Codex Sinaiticus and B is Codex Vaticanus.

Your insults reflect on you, not the targets of your filth.

Ephesians 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

you didnt read the op didnt you? you only picked me since i defended the kjv. hypocrite. he said the exact same thing in his op about men in the past. the op was edifying wasnt it? smearing reputation of two men from the past.

you are just another pickandchooser. i remember you disagreeing with st.paul on women being teachers and claiming the bible there well its just cultural context.

so dont ever quote verses from st.paul the man whose writings you dont even believe is God's word. and dont respond to me and lie saying you do. your stance on 1 timothy 2:12 & 1 cor 14:34 it being "cultural" already denies your claim.

dont talk to me until you believe the book you quote so hypocritically.
better yet never address me again. nothing you ever say is edifying its always always always always condescending pms infested snarky garbage.
just look at your posts about kjv-onlyists never being reasonable in responding just in this thread, and in your post history you hypocrite.

next time you try to quote a verse to someone make sure you got your own yard cleaned up. (and try believing in the writings of st.paul. i know you prefer worldly culture to God's eternal word)

Yawn.

King James was not homosexual. The king banished Anthony Weldon from his court.Afterward Anthony Weldon swore revenge and starting the rumor that King James was gay was it.

How slander conflates with condemning in any way KJV onlyists is beyond me.

The problem, as the OP clearly explains, is that KJV-onlyists will use slander against the NIV, when exactly the same issue can be leveled against the KJV. It's a double standard. Most people who are not KJV-only aren't concerned about the issues.

Their bizarre ideas should be ignored. If you want to know what the sound beliefs about this issue are, there are MANY OTHER DEFENDERS of the King James Bible who are not a part of this lunatic fringe. You could start with the scholarly book titled The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills. Here is what he says as opposed to Ruckman etc.

"Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.... "

The main point of the thread is a warning that many KJVists apply juvenile ad-hominem attacks toward modern translations, and do not apply their criticism toward their own position. I took one argument concerning the sexuality of the involved parties and applied their own standard to them as an example.

I won't deny that some Textus Receptus guys have a different, rational basis for their preference for the TR, although I disagree with their analysis.

However, the KJV Only crowd isn't dominated by rational rhetoric, and the three individuals I mentioned are/were very vocal in the discussion. I would call all three of them "eccentric" at best.

The most "academic" between them is Kent Hovind and some of his presentations include blatantly false statements. It would be hard for me to give this crowd any credibility.

By the way, I do believe both Erasmus and James had sexuality issues. I don't think these issues affected the KJV in terms of being a worthwhile translation. That isn't my major point. My major point is that if Christians level criticism in this way, they need to apply the same criticism to their position.

So, just to summarize, I could have a level of respect for someone like Hills assuming he didn't show a degree of contempt for those who prefer the modern versions. In essence, most of the issues regarding the Textus Receptus relate to additions to the inspired text, from my viewpoint. It's more like having a box of puzzle pieces, with some additional pieces not belong to the puzzle, rather than having missing pieces.

The only section that I highly disagree with is Mark 16:9-20 because it has been used to promote baptismal regeneration, a denial of the bodily resurrection (the "different form" remark), and strange claims by some charismatics/Pentecostals involving drinking poison and handling snakes.

As for the KJV, the language is simply too archaic and lends to confusion and wrong teachings. How many new Christians would know that 'fetch a compass" means to "go around", and that "conversation" in KJV-ese means "citizenship"?

Another bizarre one is Stephen Anderson. In fact, I would say he is the most bizarre, except perhaps Peter Ruckman.

He believes that God cannot or will not save any homosexuals, and that they cannot or will not be brought to repentance. I would classify him as an unbelieving idolater who worships a god who cannot or will not save a whole class of sinners.

He said in a BBC documentary that those who are homosexual should just shoot themselves in the head. He didn't call upon them to repent and place their faith in Christ, but simply told them to shoot themselves.

Since these four are very vocal in the community, it is hard to avoid identifying KJVers with them as a whole. Stephen Anderson is very influential within the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Movement.

By the way, he reminds me a bit of Peewee Herman.

Unbelievable.. So you are declaring that Balaam did not believe in the LORD when He heard from the LORD and said what the LORD said to say...... You call him a pagan with absolutely NO biblical evidence to back such a false claim up... You say He did not believe in the LORD? How could he NOT believe in the LORD when the LORD spoke to Him? And you expect people to take your bashing of the KJV to be unauthorative because you alleged that some of the translators on it where homosexuals, when they where never confirmed as Homosexuals.. While you promote the NIV where a two of it's translators where confirmed as Homosexuals....

I personally have never used the argument that the NIV is faulty because some of the translators where sexual deviants.. I reject the NIV because it declares satan and Jesus to be the same..

First the KJV in Isaiah 14 and in Revelation 22 clearly give satan and Jesus different titles.. satan is the son of the morning and Jesus is the Morning Star..

KJV
Isaiah 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

KJV
Revelation 22:16
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.



But the NIV declares both Jesus and satan to be the Morning star..
NIV
Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

NIV
Revelation 22:16

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

If people want to believe in a book that declares satan and Jesus to be the same person then so be it.. But i will never acknowledge such a book to be the Word of God..

why would anyone want to identify themselves with 'any' of those ' S&G identities??? in the first place???
it would seem that they really don't have any 'connection' with Yeshua's H.S...
you tell me???