ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 3154
Apr 26 09 10:17 PM
XrcTim wrote: If all this is true
Apr 26 09 10:23 PM
XrcTim wrote: logos, If all this is true and this man was truly a scholar and a stench Romanist why did he do more to undermine the Latin Vulgate than any man in history by publishing his Greek text of the NT known as the Textus Receptus?
In his defense of his revision of the Latin New Testament, Erasmus wrote: "As I do not uproot the old version, but by publishing a revision of it make it easier for us not only to possess it in a purer form but to understand it better" (Worth, Bible Translations, p. 63). Rice noted that Erasmus agreed with Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Paul of Middleburg that the Latin Bible in common use in their day had readings that Jerome said he had corrected (Saint Jerome, p. 178). Rolt pointed out that Erasmus wrote Pope Leo X that his design was not "to contradict the vulgar Latin, but to correct the faults that had crept into it" (Lives, p. 39). Boyle confirmed that Erasmus "disclaims any intention to rival the publicly read version of the text" (Erasmus on Language, p. 12). M. A. Screech observed that "Erasmus' starting-point was the Vulgate, and his goal was a scholarly revision of it" (Reeve, Annotations, p. xii). David Daniell noted: "Erasmus's chief aim was to correct the Vulgate; to make a new Latin text from the Greek that would avoid, and correct, the Vulgate's many mistakes" (William Tyndale, p. 60). Do KJV-only advocates agree with Erasmus's view of the Vulgate?
In his long title page, Erasmus did not even mention that the Greek was being published. Erasmus also keyed his Annotations to his own Latin translation. Halkin pointed out that "the Greek text was only joined to it [the Latin text] as a reference text" (Erasmus, p. 105). Daniell observed that in the Novum instrumentum "the Greek is there to explain his Latin" (William Tyndale, p. 60). Rummel observed: "Latin authors are more frequently cited than Greek ones because it is more often the Latin translation than the Greek original that is discussed in Erasmus' notes" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 50). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "it is clear that most of Erasmus's effort and the focus of his interest over many years lay in the Annotations" (II, p. 56). William Combs cited Erasmus as saying that the "Greek text has been added so that the reader can convince himself that the Latin translation does not contain any rash innovations, but is solidly based" (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 44). George Faludy stated: "The Novum instrumentum is at variance with the Vulgate in some four hundred instances, each of which is elucidated in the annotations" (Erasmus, p. 161). Daniell confirmed: "In all, Erasmus made about four hundred changes to the Vulgate, every one defended in his notes" (Bible in English, p. 117).
Rolt wrote that Erasmus requested permission to dedicate his New Testament to Pope Leo X and that "the pope was pleased he should do it" (Lives, p. 39). In their preface, the KJV translators even noted "that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, so much different from the Vulgate, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull." Harold Grimm confirmed that Pope Leo X "commended" the New Testament of Erasmus "highly" (Reformation Era, p. 81). David Daniell wrote that "Pope Leo X admired and supported Erasmus, and wrote of his admiration for the Novum instrumentum" (Bible in English, p. 117). Pennington maintained that Pope Leo X issued "a brief stamping authority upon it [the second edition] (Life, p. 187). Durant also observed that Pope Leo X approved of the New Testament of Erasmus and that "Pope Adrian VI asked Erasmus to do for the Old Testament what he had done for the New" (The Reformation, p. 285). Before he became the pope, Adrian had been a bishop and inquisitor-general in Spain. Rolt pointed out that Pope Adrian VI was an "old friend and school-fellow" of Erasmus (Lives, p. 78). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation stated that "the Popes, especially Leo X, had been favourable to him" [Erasmus] (p. 557). Sowards noted that "Leo's brief containing his enthusiastic and unqualified endorsement" of Erasmus's New Testament was printed in front of the second edition of it (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 76). Rolt observed that Pope Leo X and Cardinal Ximenes suppressed the books written by a Spaniard named Stunica against Erasmus and the first edition of his New Testament (Lives, p. 43). Butler maintained that "the pope continued to speak both of the text and version with esteem" (Life of Erasmus, P. 175). In a letter to Henry Bullock discussing the New Testament he edited, Erasmus is translated as writing that his work "is approved by bishops, by archbishops, by the Pope himself" (Jackson, Essential Works of Erasmus, p. 275). In a letter to Thomas More, Erasmus wrote: "The New Testament is approved even by those whom I thought most likely to find fault; and the leading theologians like it very much" (Ibid., p. 264). The Dictionary of Catholic Biography noted that Erasmus "was upheld throughout his career by the popes, none of whom censured him" (p. 380). Rolt noted that Roman Catholic Cardinal Albertus and Cardinal Campegius wrote letters to Erasmus commending him concerning his New Testament, and they sent him presents (one a silver cup and the other a diamond ring) (Lives, p. 41). Sir Thomas More, who was later made a Catholic saint and who was a close friend of Erasmus, wrote three poems in praise of this New Testament (Ibid.). A pope did not condemn the writings of Erasmus until Pope Paul IV in the Index of 1559, over twenty years after the death of Erasmus. Thomas James asked: "Seeing his Apology satisfied the pope in his life-time, why should papists traduce him now he is dead?" (Treatise, p. xxx).
Apr 26 09 10:57 PM
XrcTim wrote: You are one of the type of people I could never stand
Posts: 2300
Apr 27 09 12:07 AM
Bible Believer
Apr 27 09 12:12 AM
Apr 27 09 12:29 AM
Charline Tiller March 13, 2002
The Renaissance was a period of great change, characterized by a revision of many concepts and a return to antique sources. One of the greatest scholars of this time was Desiderius Erasmus. He contributed to the Renaissance by revising ancient works and translating them into Greek and Latin. During his lifetime, Erasmus also contributed to the Reformation by calling for reform in the Church through his various satirical works. He was a prolific writer and exerted such great influence during his time that he was called "The Prince of the Humanists." 1 Erasmus was a dedicated Christian who advocated reform within the Church, spread the idea of pacifism, and was a subject of controversy and criticism within his own era and in modern times; yet he never lost touch with his Christian convictions.
Although his traditional birthplace is listed as Rotterdam, Erasmus was actually born at Gouda, a city in the Netherlands, on October 27, 1466. [Editor's note: in truth, the place of Erasmus' birth is contested: some claim Rotterdam, others Gouda.] He was the illegitimate son of an educated priest, Robert Gerard, and a washwoman known as Margaret. Originally, his name was Gerard Gerhards. Erasmus later changed his name to Desiderius, which means "desired one" in Latin. 2 His mother brought him up at Gouda until he was sent to school at Deventer around the age of nine. 3 Sadly, both of his parents died of the plague when Erasmus was about fifteen. His guardians pressured him into attending the monastery at Emmaus. Erasmus hated his time there and wrote about it as one of the worst periods of his life. 4 He took his monastic vows, but never functioned as a priest. 5
In 1491, Erasmus was freed from the monastery when the Bishop of Cambrai chose Erasmus to accompany him to Italy as his secretary and traveling companion. Cambrai chose Erasmus for his great linguistic ability and because he was bright and had a wonderful memory. Although the trip was never made, the Bishop retained Erasmus in his services, and in 1495 sent Erasmus to Paris to complete his studies. 6
Erasmus was not impressed with Paris. The educational system was based largely on scholasticism, a philosophy that tried to reduce religious belief to logical analysis. Being a devoted Christian, Erasmus did not appreciate this educational method and decided to spend some time traveling through France and the Netherlands. He then traveled to England where he met and formed several lifelong friendships with Thomas More, Colet, and other humanists. Colet showed him how to reconcile the ancient faith with humanism by abandoning the scholastic method and devoting himself to a thorough study of the Scriptures. 7
Beginning in 1499, Erasmus moved from city to city working as a tutor and lecturer, constantly searching out ancient manuscripts and writing. It was through his travels and his association with other humanists that Erasmus was able to spread humanism throughout England.
After his stay in England, Erasmus returned to Paris where he wrote his Chiliades Adagiorum, more commonly known as Adages, a collection of axioms, expressions, and proverbs from classical literature that he published in Latin. The first edition of this work was printed in 1502, and its publication began his scholarly reputation. Erasmus continued adding to the work for the next thirty years. The final version contained over 4,000 sayings, many of which are present in our own expressions today. Adages is one of the few secular works which Erasmus compiled; most of his writings attack scholasticism and church corruption.
One of his best known works is In Praise of Folly. Erasmus dedicated Folly to his friend, Thomas More. This work is a satire in which the personification of Folly praises the foolish activities of the day. Some of the subjects he attacked were superstitious religious practices and the vanity of Church leaders. One such superstition was the sale of Indulgences by the Church, which its leaders sold in order to raise money for building projects. Indulgences were supposed to reduce the time a sinner would spend in purgatory. Erasmus felt that this was an abuse of ecclesiastical power. He also blasted people for praying to the Saints instead of God, because he recognized that salvation came only through Christ. His goal was to promote basic Christian values.
Throughout the work, he continued to satirize other groups, including peasants, poets, rhetoricians, and narrow-minded natural scientists. He especially satirized the monastic orders. He castigated the monks and church leaders for taking vows of poverty and then not honoring them. Pointing out that many bishops lived in wealth, he rebuked them for being more concerned with the pursuit of financial gain than fulfilling the spiritual needs of their flock. 8
Folly was not the only controversial work Erasmus produced by any means. His Greek New Testament was a center of great controversy, especially since Erasmus's interpretation pointed out errors in Jerome's Vulgate. Colloquia, better known as Colloquies, gained him even more hostility from the Church. In this work, Erasmus continued to assault erroneous Church practices. Published in 1518, this work caused him to be charged as a Lutheran by Church authorities. Erasmus vehemently denied this allegation, although he was friends with Martin Luther and agreed that the Church needed to have some reform. 9 To counter this accusation, Erasmus then wrote his work On the Freedom of the Will, which challenged Luther's philosophy. Because Erasmus wrote on spiritual subjects and had friendships with various Reformers, he has often been listed as one of the leaders of the Reformation. Erasmus never considered himself a Reformer. In private letters, in fact, he proclaimed his loyalty to the Church. 10
His other works offer a great deal of insight into Erasmus's spiritual beliefs. For instance, Erasmus believed that baptism should be by full immersion and should come only after one had accepted Christ as his or her personal Savior. He believed that life began in the womb, "the fetus in the womb of the mother both feels and understands as soon as it begins to grow, which is a sign of life, unless a man in his formation has more souls than one, and afterwards, the rest giving place, the one acts all. So that at first, a man is a plant, then an animal, and lastly a man" [sic]. 11 Erasmus also disagreed with the notion that sexual excitement was a sin. He believed that sexual excitement came from nature, much the same as any other bodily function, and grew exasperated with people who believed it to be shameful. 12
Much concerned with religious humanism, Erasmus deftly wielded his gift of writing as an instrument of peace. In particular, his writings held a tremendous amount of sway in Northern Europe. He was renowned for his pacifist views, which he poignantly enumerates in Against War. He felt that war was senseless since it only caused destruction and death. Those who engaged in war he rebuked as having no greater morality than beasts. Although he scorned human warfare, he excused killing in the animal kingdom. He theorized that animals were created with the necessary means of survival, but that mankind polluted their design by producing instruments with which to kill one other. Animals who needed a means of survival came equipped for such conflict: tough skin, armored plating, claws, fangs, etc. Humans, by contrast, were encased in bodies that had soft flesh and were easily susceptible to wounding. Erasmus was especially adamant that Christians, of all people, should not engage in warfare. He believed God equipped mankind with the capacity for love, empathy, and kindness: virtues which were not displayed during times of war. He felt Christian's lives should exemplify Christ at all times. 13
Despite his enormous popularity, Erasmus had many critics. Of all his writings, his Greek New Testament translation garnered the most controversy. The accuracy of his translation is especially important to modern Christians because it is the predecessor of the current King James Version of the Bible. Critics have leveled charges that Erasmus' first translation was "hastily prepared" and "fraught with errors." Critics fail to realize that Erasmus was working to complete the translation within his publisher's deadline, a time span of only one short year. Furthermore, this first edition was not the publication used when transcribing the King James Version. Rather, later translations were based on the subsequent four versions that Erasmus wrote, which he spent the next twenty years editing and revising in order to ensure total accuracy. It could also be argued that the timely completion of the first translation proves Erasmus a devoted and learned scholar, well-equipped for the task at hand. 14
Another area of conflict in Erasmus' life involved his relationship with the great Reformer, Martin Luther. Concerning this friendship, Erasmus found himself "between a rock and hard place." There is a great deal of evidence citing the high esteem that Luther and Erasmus had for each other. Initially, Erasmus defended Luther's views, but the latter continued to increase in prominence and political power. As Erasmus watched Luther become more aggressive in his stance, Erasmus realized he could no longer support Luther, even by indirect methods. He felt that continuing to do so would compromise his moral conscience. Yet he never attacked Luther's character. Instead, he confronted Luther's core teachings in On the Freedom of the Will. Erasmus further limited his involvement with the struggle between the Reformers and the Catholic Church by refusing to state outright that one was absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. His ability to separate himself from the religious intrigues lends credence to the veracity of his commentaries on both the Reformers and the Church. 15
The most recent controversy involving Erasmus has nothing to do with his scholarly works, his pacifism, or whether or not he was a Reformer or a devout Catholic. It has to do with his sexuality. Several factors sparked a debate over whether or not Erasmus was a homosexual. The most compelling piece of evidence, according to several gay rights groups, is a collection of nine letters he wrote when he was only twenty-one to a fellow monk named Servatius Rogerius. In these letters, Erasmus uses the word "love" to describe his affection for Rogerius. Erasmus' choice of words can hardly be indicative of a homosexual tendency. It is more probable that the term "love" is used here as a statement of Erasmus' deep affection and regard for Rogerius-nothing more and nothing less. Erasmus made no effort to hide his letters to Grey. If they did contain homosexual innuendoes, Erasmus would likely have tried to conceal the letters, since they would have contained information that would damage his reputation and everything for which he stood. On the contrary, evidence against Erasmus being a homosexual is found in his own writings, where he condemns homosexuality.
Other incidents that have added fuel to the charge that Erasmus was a homosexual include his sudden dismissal by the guardian of Thomas Grey, a student Erasmus tutored in Paris, and the fact that the bishop who sponsored Erasmus's studies there abruptly withdrew his financial support. In this instance, the modern supposition is that Erasmus was suspected of being involved in an illicit relationship with Grey. However, the arguments to support such claims are dubious at best. To begin with, no one during his lifetime accused Erasmus of homosexual behavior. Given the fact that he was a public figure, any accusation of homosexual activity would undoubtedly have been recorded. The fact that no such accusation was made during his lifetime constitutes the strongest evidence that Erasmus was not a homosexual. The addition of Erasmus, a member of the clergy, to a list of historical gays would prove beneficial to present-day gay activists. This seems to be the primary motivation behind these allegations which have only been leveled in recent times.
Erasmus was an important personage in history because of the way he lived his life. His travels sent him throughout Europe, teaching pacifism and humanism along the way. He was an advocate of Christian virtue within the Church and his association with Luther, translation of the Greek New Testament, and satirical commentaries about the evils in the Church made him the target of criticism. Throughout his life, Erasmus continued to conduct himself in the manner befitting a true Christian believer. In essence, he lived out his own maxim, "It is vain to gather virtues without humility; for the spirit of God delights to dwell in the hearts of the humble." 16
Table of Contents | Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page
. get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.
http://www.mrrena.com/misc/erasmus.shtml
Apr 27 09 8:15 AM
XrcTim wrote: Erasmus of the Renaissance He also blasted people for praying to the Saints instead of God, because he recognized that salvation came only through Christ.
He also blasted people for praying to the Saints instead of God, because he recognized that salvation came only through Christ.
Martin Luther claimed that Erasmus was "a scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 434). Roland Bainton noted that "Luther's answer to Erasmus was to impute to him a spirit of skepticism, levity, and impiety" (Here I Stand, p. 197). In an introduction to a translation of some of the writings of Erasmus and Luther, Marlow and Drewery note that Luther regarded Erasmus as "a trifler with truth, a scoffer of religion, an unbeliever" (Rupp, Luther and Erasmus, p. 2). In response to Erasmus, Luther wrote: "you declare that these things are not necessary; whereas, unless they are necessary and known with certainty, then neither God, nor Christ, nor gospel, nor faith, nor anything is left, not even of Judaism, much less of Christianity" (Ibid., p. 114). Stephen Nichols affirmed that Luther observed that "Erasmus 'knows nothing' of the gospel" (Martin Luther, p. 106). McClintock asserted that "Luther saw the weakness and spiritual poverty of Erasmus" (Cyclopaedia, III, p. 279). Fisher pointed out that Luther "thought Erasmus was defending the principles which lay at the basis of the whole system of salvation by merit" (History, p. 303). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation in its article on humanism noted that the emphasis of Erasmus "on the exemplary, moral, and pedagogical roles of Christ could be developed into a rejection of the atonement or of the divinity of Christ" (II, p. 268). McGrath stated that Erasmus "developed an essentially moral theology of justification" and that his view makes "justification dependent upon man's imitatio Christi" (Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, p. 58). Arthur McGiffert observed that in Erasmus' book on Free Will, "he maintained the traditional Catholic belief that salvation is the product of divine grace and human effort" (History, II, pp. 392-393). Eriks observed that "Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation" (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, April, 1999, p. 46). He added: "A serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone" (p. 47). Arthur Pennington maintained that "we learn also from this treatise [Enchiridion] that he [Erasmus] held the meritoriousness of good works" (Life, p. 61). In 1533 in his On Mending the Peace of the Church, Erasmus wrote: "Let us agree that we are justified by faith, i.e., the hearts of the faithful are thereby purified, provided we admit that the works of charity are necessary for salvation" (Essential Erasmus, p. 379). Thus, Erasmus seemed to defend the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of justification. Halkin maintained that for Erasmus, the [Roman Catholic] Church was "the regulator of faith" (Erasmus, p. 159). He also noted that "for Erasmus, baptism was essential" (p. 253).
Charles Hodge pointed out that according to the Roman Catholic view "we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e., for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart" (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 69). Gerstner noted that in response to the question of how a sinner is justified that Roman Catholicism said: "By our works which flow from faith in Christ" (Theology in Dialogue, p. 471). William Perkins (1558-1602) commented: "The papist saying that a man is justified by faith understandeth a general or a catholic faith, whereby a man believeth the articles of religion to be true" (Work of William Perkins, p. 535). Robert Dabney observed that according to the doctrine of Rome "justification is rather to be conceived as a process, than an absolute and complete act" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 621). Cameron pointed out that Catholicism "insisted that souls were saved by the bit-by-bit process of sacramental purification" (European Reformation, p. 334). The Westminster Dictionary of Church History noted that "Erasmus interpreted the history of salvation as an educational process conducted by divine wisdom, in which man is led from flesh to spirit, from imperfection to perfection, from sinner to saint" (p. 305). Henry Sheldon wrote: "In place of justification by faith, as taught by the Reformer [Luther], he [Erasmus] preferred to insist that the way to salvation lies in the strenuous imitation of the graces of Christ" (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, pp. 32-33). Arthur Pennington maintained that Erasmus "understood by faith in Christ, as we have already seen, the imitation of His example" (Life, pp. 307-308). He added that "we gather from various passages that he [Erasmus] considers that to be a Christian is not to be justified by faith in Christ, but to exhibit in the whole course of our life and conversation a transcript, however faint, of those graces and virtues which dignified and adorned the all perfect character of our Divine Master" (p. 308).
Some other quotations will clearly reveal more of the problems with the views of Erasmus. In his Colloquies, Erasmus wrote: "I find in the writings of the ancient heathen and in the poets so much that is pure, holy and divine, that I must believe that their hearts were divinely moved" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 414). Samuel Stumpf pointed out that Erasmus "saw a close similarity between Plato's philosophy and the teachings of Christ" (Philosophy: History, p. 216). Erasmus suggested that Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all precursors of Christ (Erasmus & Luther, p. 33). In one biography, the author noted the following about Erasmus: "Plato, he soon discovered, was a theologian, Socrates a saint, Cicero inspired, and Seneca not far from Paul" (Smith, Erasmus, p. 53). A historian wrote: "He applied to Plato, Cicero, and Seneca the phrase 'divinely inspired'; he would not admit that such men were excluded from salvation; and he could 'scarce forbear' praying to 'Saint Socrates'" (Durant, The Reformation, p. 289). Stefan Zweig observed: "So far as Erasmus was concerned, there existed neither a moral nor an unbridgeable antagonism between Jesus and Socrates" (Erasmus of Rotterdam, pp. 7-. McGrath stated: "For the humanist, it was therefore imperative to turn (or return) to the sources of antiquity, whether they were pagan or Christian, in order to learn from them" (Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, p. 127).
In the article about Erasmus in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is noted that Erasmus' "philosophy of Christ" was "a nondoctrinal religion, a religion without a theology" (p. 43). In the book The Age of the Reformation, the author stated that Erasmus "wished to reduce Christianity to a moral, humanitarian, undogmatic philosophy of life" (p. 58). Albert Hyma described Erasmus as a "forerunner of modern liberal Christianity" (Dolan, Essential Erasmus, p. 10). Abraham Friesen referred several times to "Erasmus's Neoplatonism" (Erasmus, pp. 2, 32, 36, 37, 129) and noted: "Erasmus's Neoplatonic paradigmallowed him to regard the visible as similar in kind to the ideal, no matter to what extent it had been corrupted" (p. 36). "In his admiration for Origen, Erasmus was influenced by the Greek Father's Neo-platonism, and his program of interior piety was further indebted to the Neo-platonism that he encountered among such humanists as Pico della Mirandola and John Vitrier" (Great Thinkers of the Western World, p. 130).
"The imitation of Christ that the Enchiridion [a book written by Erasmus] advocated was the imitation of Christ's ethic" (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 66). In this book, Erasmus claimed that "a sensible reading of the pagan poets and philosophers is a good preparation for the Christian life" (Essential Erasmus, p. 36). David Daniell observed that though Erasmus "used in the Enchiridion the name 'Christ' a very great deal, Christ is a rather pale figure in the book" and that the Enchiridion "is a masterpiece of humanist piety" (William Tyndale, p. 68). W. R. Estep commented: "There are those who see in the Enchiridion as much of Plato as of Christ" (The Reformation). Erasmus noted that "dogma certainly does not seem to me at all necessary for piety" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 108).
Apr 27 09 11:29 AM
Posts: 3482
Apr 27 09 12:25 PM
<disagreeing with the opinions, speculations, assumptions, and interpretations of men is not an attempt to "remove THE WORD OF GOD">
But your futile claim and attack on THE KJV not being "THE WORD OF GOD" is. Yours is nothing more than an "interpretation of men", just like most of the "blind fools" you quote for evidence. One whose "FAITH cometh by HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD", "may KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF ALL THINGS THEY HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED(Luke 1:3,4) from THE KJV which contains "THE WORD OF GOD". your attack of THE KJV via the use of quotes from "interpretations of men" and not genuine "FAITH IN CHRIST" tied together with animosity toward GOD'S WORD tells all. You attack THE WORD OF GOD like a typical CULTIST who's belief comes clearly from "interpretations of men"/"traditions of men". All your posts evidence this. "so then, FAITH COMETH BY HEARING and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD"
Apr 27 09 2:20 PM
glorybe429 wrote: who's belief comes clearly from "interpretations of men"/"traditions of men".
who's belief comes clearly from "interpretations of men"/"traditions of men".
Apr 27 09 2:27 PM
glorybe429 wrote: < THE KJV not being "THE WORD OF GOD"
< THE KJV not being "THE WORD OF GOD"
Posts: 85958
Apr 27 09 5:12 PM
Administrator
glorybe429 wrote: <disagreeing with the opinions, speculations, assumptions, and interpretations of men is not an attempt to "remove THE WORD OF GOD"> But your futile claim and attack on THE KJV not being "THE WORD OF GOD" is. Yours is nothing more than an "interpretation of men", just like most of the "blind fools" you quote for evidence. One whose "FAITH cometh by HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD", "may KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF ALL THINGS THEY HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED(Luke 1:3,4) from THE KJV which contains "THE WORD OF GOD". your attack of THE KJV via the use of quotes from "interpretations of men" and not genuine "FAITH IN CHRIST" tied together with animosity toward GOD'S WORD tells all. You attack THE WORD OF GOD like a typical CULTIST who's belief comes clearly from "interpretations of men"/"traditions of men". All your posts evidence this. "so then, FAITH COMETH BY HEARING and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD"
Apr 27 09 5:24 PM
Apr 27 09 7:16 PM
<are you trying to IMPLY that THE WORD OF GOD didn't exist before 1611 or that no one could have FAITH before 1611?>
I'm pointing out that you have taken a clear cut STAND AGAINST "THE WORD OF GOD" which is contained in THE KJV. There are only one or two reasons a person would do this. a. he/she is one who "BELEIVETH NOT" b. he/she being one who "BELIEVETH NOT" is here to disrupt this web site, because it is a web site which does "STAND" on "THE WORD OF GOD" which "IS WRITTEN" in the KJV, and their personal agenda or CULT rejects "THE WORD OF GOD". "by their FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM"
Apr 27 09 7:29 PM
<THE KJV is THE WORD OF GOD....in the sense>
how ROMAN CATHOLIC!
Either one "KNOWS THE CERTAINTY(Luke 1:3,4)", and not "in the sense", that THE KJV contains "THE WORD OF GOD" by "THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION" as "IS WRITTEN" therein, or one doesn't "KNOW THE CERTAINTY", and "BELIEVETH NOT". One's "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD" or it doesn't. It's all black and white, no catholic or CULT gray area's. GOD'S WORD(contained in THE KJV) "STANDS" on what "IS WRITTEN" therein. And a "BELIEVER" can and will "KNOW THE CERTAINTY" and "POWER" of "THE WORD" therein, and would never try to mount attacks on "THE WORD", KNOWING that would be absolutely futile.
So I welcome all of you who "BELIEVETH NOT", to open THE KJV which contains "THE WORD OF GOD" and to "HEAR HIS VOICE" for the first time. Forget the "interpretations of men" and "traditions of men" you find yourself bound to, and "TRUST HIM"
Posts: 7270
Apr 27 09 7:37 PM
Apr 27 09 7:48 PM
<the same verses are found....>
which takes us back to the question as to why the attempted attack on THE KJV which contains "THE WORD OF GOD"? Why would people come on here with such defiance and animostiy toward "THE WORD OF GOD"?
My conclusion is either (a) or (b) above
Apr 27 09 7:57 PM
glorybe429 wrote: <the same verses are found....> which takes us back to the question as to why the attempted attack on THE KJV which contains "THE WORD OF GOD"? Why would people come on here with such defiance and animostiy toward "THE WORD OF GOD"? My conclusion is either (a) or (b) above
Posts: 435
Apr 28 09 8:11 AM
Apr 28 09 8:36 AM
cheezit01 wrote: If I were to undertake the large task of starting with a KJV of the Bible and with that Bible open in front of me, re-write it from start to finish changing such words as "thy, thee, and thou", as well as other words no longer used in the same way today (like the word "pricks" in Acts 9:5 and 26:14), to their modern counterparts, would I have a "per-version"? Yes or no. Why or why not? After all, it's still based on the same manuscripts.
Share This