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

what is a pope?

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).

Umm...
And I think, there is a circular reasoning here: I’ll challenge your assertion over your fact that “no translation is inspired by God”.

Of course, I have to look what the Bible says more than anything else like circular reasoning of man. Biblically, citation from the Hebrew Old Testament was translated in the New Testament. Greek. Thus the Greek equivalent or translation in so far is given by inspiration and is called scripture. So, the post is already flawed. God indeed use “reasoning” but it must be based on God standard, even Paul had used reasoning “out of the scriptures” and in many times he usually cited Hebrew Old Testament which was penned downed in a Greek language.

Isaiah 1:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Acts 17:2

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

2 Timothy 3:15, 16, are NOT a reference to the “originals”. They refer to “the holy scriptures,” copies of Old Testament Books that Timothy had known “from a child.” Timothy was from Lystra, not Jerusalem and he was of mixed parentage, i.e. “his father was a Greek” Acts 16:1, not one of “the chief priests” Matthew 26:3, who would have had custody over ‘the originals,’ even if they had existed then. It would therefore have been impossible for Timothy to have had access to them such “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures” 2 Timothy 3:15a.

Yet Timothy clearly had access to “all scripture...given by inspiration of God.” The term “inspiration,” therefore, applies to copies of the scriptures and to translations,

Nobody is arguing that the translations included within the text of Scripture are not inspired (though there are some interesting issues there too). You're playing with semantics.

In one sense, inspiration does extend to translations, in that the translations are still the inspired word of God. The 1611 Preface to the Reader addresses this issue. However, there is a significant categorical difference between claiming that the translation is the inspired word of God and claiming that God inspired every word of the translation. The latter, which some KJV-only advocates claim (and which you seem to claim here), is a fallacy of equivocation and is simply not true.

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It asserts or assumes that one translation is inspired while another isn't. In fact, no translation is inspired by God.

No. It's a flawed argument, on several levels.

- It contains an implied fallacy of equivocation, wherein the translation of Scripture is equated with the concept of "Scripture".

God spoke the universe into existence.
He caused the original writers to write the scripture exactly the way he wanted it written, right down to the jot and title.

He made an ass speak the word of God.

He told his people to study the scripture and rightly divide the word of truth to be approved by God as a workman for the kingdom of God.

Where did you come up with "In fact, no translation is inspired by God."?

Did you rightly divide the word of truth to come to that conclusion?

If so could you show us the scripture where God said he WASN'T CAPABLE or WASN'T WILLING to translate his word into other languages?

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Dino this isn't hard to understand.
Scripture defines scripture as - given by inspiration of God.
If a writing isn't inspire by God, it isn't scripture.... it's just a writing.

I gonna find out which version will stop a bullet and read that one exclusively

I was referring to the pope as a man who sees himself as sitting on the Earthly throne of God.

Promise?

The Book of Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
The World War One soldier whose Bible stopped a bullet

Christian Today staff writer Mon 5 Nov 2018


George Vinall's Bible with the bullets that came close to killing him.


Unless I miss my guess pictured is the KJV Bible. I have an old copy that looks just like that in matters of the binding that is visible around the pages that are red on their outer leaf.
The Bible Society distributed 9 million Bibles during WW1. Those copies looked like this.
Which is clearly not the one pictured in the article and credited to the Bible Society.

Just so this is clear, I want to mention that I am not disparaging individuals who suffer from same-sex attraction issues.

My point is this: if you reject modern versions based on a given criterion, why do you not use the same criterion and reject the King James Version?

This demonstrates inconsistency, and exposes, in my mind, the major reason behind KJV Onlyism: tradition.

I agree that some KJVers have a different, reasonable standard for their claims. While I don't agree with their reasoning, I can recognize their right to a well-reasoned difference of opinion.

However, most of the arguments I see from the KJV Only camp are not well reasoned arguments, and that strongly colors my perception of the KJV only camp. Steven Anderson, Sam Gimp, Kent Hovind, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman added to my disdain for their claims. Every one of those guys is a joke and have said things that are totally ridiculous.

I also realize some like the KJV simply due to preference. I don't, but I recognize that it has some endearing characteristics.

By the way, one of my friends, Phil, was educated at a prominent Roman Catholic university. He was saved while reading a stick-figure Bible that was a super-paraphrased version.

That's a cool story, thanks for posting it.