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

Except the slander against King James is just that.
A nasty rumor started by someone holding a grudge because they were banished from court starts a lie against a king who's name attaches to the holy word of God is still a lie. Designed no doubt to impugn the legitimacy of the Bible he authorized published.

Whereas in the case of the NIV, which is criticized as a translation in itself,
Problems With the New International Version, the charge of homosexuality against at least two people who participated in its version creation are actual facts. Which the OP does not clearly explain at all. In fact the OP clearly intends to propagate the false charge against king James and by allusion KJV "Onlyists". I'd hope we'd ask why, what is the motive? When the old rumor about king James is precisely that. Old and a proven falsity as there was never any evidence to support the rumor started by Anthony Weldon.


Virginia Mollenkott is an open Lesbian. She was the Stylistic editor of the NIV version. Anyone can look her up on any search engine and discover this fact.
Furthermore,Dr. Marten Woudstra , now departed, was chairman of the NIV's Old Testament translation committee and he was in fact homosexual. He stated once, "Loving monogamous relationships between gay men or women were acceptable to God and that there was nothing in the Old Testament that spoke against the perversion. " As reported by a source: http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/marten_woudstra.htm

The claims come from multiple sources, and are credible to me.

My major point is that KJVers use unequal standards to compare their translation with others.

In this case, the claim is made that two homosexuals were involved in the creation of the NIV. So, I am exposing the inconsistency of their argumentation by observing that two individuals who were involved in the KJV were reputed homosexuals. In fact, one footed the bill.

I also find it interesting that the book carries his name. Why did they name the book after him? Seems pretty vain to me.

I don't think I want to use a Bible named after a specific individual, let alone a gay English king.

You're COMPLETELY missing the point.

The point is not that King James was (or was not) a deviant. The point is that KJV-only advocates use certain criticisms against other Bible translations because of personnel involved in the translation, and COMPLETELY IGNORE exactly the same kind of criticisms against the KJV. They are inconsistent and use double standards.

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Why do they whine about slander instead of addressing the real issue the OP identifies?

You're COMPLETELY missing the point.

The point is not that King James was (or was not) a deviant. The point is that KJV-only advocates use certain criticisms against other Bible translations because of personnel involved in the translation, and COMPLETELY IGNORE exactly the same kind of criticisms against the KJV. They are inconsistent and use double standards.

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Why do they whine about slander instead of addressing the real issue the OP identifies?

I didn't miss the point in the least.
In fact I think you missed the point entirely. But I will not argue over this. The difference between the validity of the KJV and NIV is as clear as day.
Oddly there are those who are anti-KJV persons in this world. For that condition I feel there is no answer, nor need to debate. They're set in their ways and it is a waste of precious time to think someone is able to talk them out of that.

My position would be that the rumors about Erasmus and King James are likely true.

You don't address the evidence contained in the letters between Erasmus and the monk he was attempting to romance.

Do you want me to post segments of the letter, and let the reader decide if a normal male would think that they are the words of a heterosexual? Do you want me to post segments of a letter where King James called a man his "wife"?

All I have to do is dig them up again.

Funny thing is, I've seen KJV Onlyist discussions on this topic where they do not try to hide these facts, but try to explain them away as talk that is characteristic of male companionship at that time.

My intention is to show double standards of some KJVists and their rhetoric.

Is it not God who puts dignitaries and Kings in place? And are we not supposed to support all in these positions in authority? Surely any King of England on the throne who tried to name the Bible after him, knew this?

If God says submit to them, then who is anyone to dispute it?

1 Peter 2:13 13Submit yourselves for the LORD's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority.

One of the thousand reasons I go with the KJV.

We aren't subject, as believers, to a king born 400 years ago.

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).

the KJV was done by a committee of 47 scholars and clergymen over the course of many years. So we cannot say for certain which individual wrote a given passage.

the KJV was done by a committee of 47 scholars and clergymen over the course of many years. So we cannot say for certain which individual wrote a given passage.

The difference between the validity of the KJV and NIV is as clear as day.

Oddly there are those who are anti-KJV persons in this world. For that condition I feel there is no answer, nor need to debate. They're set in their ways and it is a waste of precious time to think someone is able to talk them out of that.

No but they were 400 years ago when THE BIBLE WAS PRINTED. I am out of this thread for now, as you seem to argue with what anyone says. And by the way. giving the BBC documentary as a good example is not a good example (not in England anyway). A bad example is not a good example. I for one don't care about this enough to comment further. Read what you like okay?

Wow, you are one of those hate filled Andersonites huh? Have you ever heard Jeff tell what that thumb ring is on for? You should research it a bit before coming here to slander two men suggesting they might be homosexual. Then in the next comment down you really go off calling others hypocrite, liar, and then end with-



as if you are not doing the same thing in the very same comment you're accusing him of.....hypocritically! Really, even your accusation of his hypocrisy is in fact hypocritical!! Like?????

Come on man, when a position demands you act this way you may want to step back and take a look at the fruit coming from your branches "Anderson/Westboro type Methods", they hurt the body of Christ and bring shame to His awesome name. I can't see Jesus name being glorified at all by these methods because they are absent love. How longsuffering is our God? You know. And there are people that think they are getting angry for God? I just don't get it, we are commanded to proclaim His word, He told us to proclaim His good news in love, not in condemnation as I see here.

I want to really make a point to say that I do not think everything he says is wrong, and even think he says a LOT right, but there is leaven in his loaf, and it is apparent when reading comments like yours. I am only saying these things because I believe you're in error man. Take a look at this comment from you.



Really? Let's say you're completely right, how on earth does this help your brother to see the truth? If he is in error you just built the wall taller. Why wouldn't you take a more effective approach? You don't have to compromise a letter of what you're saying, and say it in a way that will be received better. If they won't receive it then it just justifies God more on their day of judgement when He say's "I sent them here". I'm not trying to argue or even start a fight here, but you should seriously check you behavior here, to represent our King better.

hello friend. im not an andersonite.

but i do appreciate your attitude. you are right i shouldnt of responded to snarky condescending comments with snakry condescending comments but turned the other cheek.
i guess my pride got the best of me.

i apologize im sorry. btw: i say the same to you as i did before, the only reason i brought up james white and jeff durbin is because the op suggested king james and erasmus were going 'that way'. so i just responded like that because of it.
i dont actually think they are that way lolz. it was just to point out the hypocrisy in my opinion that if i did the same, i would get flack for it, which i did.

i should of not gone forth to prove any points and just leave it as is, say i disagree with the op for reasons x y and z instead of make unchristlike statements justifying it with "but he started!!!"

sorry Dino, i apologize. sorry Jimbone as well and all who read it.

I don't consider him to be a true prophet of God, due to his non-Israelite name and the fact that he led Israel into the sins of sexual immorality and idolatry.

However, I realize God used him in some sense, just as Caiaphas was used to proclaim the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.

It could be that he is like the health, wealth, and prosperity preachers on TV...claiming allegiance with God but in reality a false teacher.

There are some curious remarks in the account, though.

The thing is I don't think it is supposed to be anything other than a punishment to hear stammering lips in this case. Is this what you mean?

This verse is to be understood as a response to what the complaining and dissatisfied people had said, as expressed in the previous verse. God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating; he would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God.

How does that relate to the KJV or other translations?

And, are you referring to "speaking in tongues"?