Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Trent and the KJV

    ------------------

    What about the Council of Trent? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    So we're returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we've come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here.
    The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

    However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

    In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may 'use'.

    Gotta love how the devil is always the boogeyman. Personally, there was good and bad both in the Reformation and I'm sure the same can be said for the counter-Reformation.
    "In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent" [S1P87]. "The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits" [S2P235]. The purpose was to: "... undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine" [S2P237].

    The latter could be true if you meant undermining Protestantism. I think at that time the genie was out of the bottle and there was no eliminating it. However, I have no reason to think they were trying to undermine the Bible.
    "The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that 'tradition' was on equal authority with the Bible" [S1P87].

    The Council of Trent also decreed that:

    "... justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was CURSED" [S1P87].

    The council's exact words were:

    "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be ANATHEMA" [S1P87].

    While I think this is an accurate set of quotations, would it have killed Johnson to go straight to the source?
    "Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this 'Church' to preserve his Words?" [S1P87].

    Apparently he had for 1,000 years.
    So this was the 'policy' of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

    Specifically, history records that:

    1) The Council of Trent condemned: "That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation ..."

    This could be since the RCC does put tradition up there with Scripture, but it needs to be shown, not asserted.
    2) The Council of Trent condemned: "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit".

    Again, this needs to be shown. I think there are things that are plain that the RCC would agree we can all understand, but also that there are difficult things that Protestant scholars would say are not plain and we do need help to understand.
    3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: "... they were apocryphal and not canonical".

    At this point, a writer could name those books, but I suppose Johnson doesn't want to.

    Either way, I have read the Apocrypha and I have no problem with Christians doing so.
    4) The Council of Trent also said that: "... lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy" [S2P237].

    5) "The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God" [S4P100].

    6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome's, corrupted, Latin Bible was: "... the authentic Bible of the Roman Church" [S4P99].

    Again, would it have been too hard to quote Trent directly?
    And lastly:

    "The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present - that the corrupt manuscripts ... are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema - ACCURSED" [S11P61].

    It's hard to say what is going on here. The RCC did later on issue their own translation called the Rheims-Douay so it's hard to imagine they closed all investigation.
    So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic 'Church', the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.

    Actually, we just see assertions. There's a lot of back and forth that went on and this is neither the time nor the place to deal with those issues. I'm just interested in textual issues and we have none of those really being dealt with here.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters
    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
    What about the Council of Trent? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So we’re returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we’ve come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here. The reformation is running wild across Europe. There … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 14.1

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Trent and the KJV

      ------------------

      What about the Council of Trent? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

      So we're returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we've come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here.
      The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

      However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

      In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may 'use'.


      Gotta love how the devil is always the boogeyman. Personally, there was good and bad both in the Reformation and I'm sure the same can be said for the counter-Reformation.
      "In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent" [S1P87]. "The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits" [S2P235]. The purpose was to: "... undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine" [S2P237].


      The latter could be true if you meant undermining Protestantism. I think at that time the genie was out of the bottle and there was no eliminating it. However, I have no reason to think they were trying to undermine the Bible.
      "The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that 'tradition' was on equal authority with the Bible" [S1P87].

      The Council of Trent also decreed that:

      "... justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was CURSED" [S1P87].

      The council's exact words were:

      "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be ANATHEMA" [S1P87].


      While I think this is an accurate set of quotations, would it have killed Johnson to go straight to the source?
      "Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this 'Church' to preserve his Words?" [S1P87].


      Apparently he had for 1,000 years.
      So this was the 'policy' of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

      Specifically, history records that:

      1) The Council of Trent condemned: "That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation ..."


      This could be since the RCC does put tradition up there with Scripture, but it needs to be shown, not asserted.
      2) The Council of Trent condemned: "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit".


      Again, this needs to be shown. I think there are things that are plain that the RCC would agree we can all understand, but also that there are difficult things that Protestant scholars would say are not plain and we do need help to understand.
      3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: "... they were apocryphal and not canonical".


      At this point, a writer could name those books, but I suppose Johnson doesn't want to.

      Either way, I have read the Apocrypha and I have no problem with Christians doing so.
      4) The Council of Trent also said that: "... lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy" [S2P237].

      5) "The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God" [S4P100].

      6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome's, corrupted, Latin Bible was: "... the authentic Bible of the Roman Church" [S4P99].


      Again, would it have been too hard to quote Trent directly?
      And lastly:


      "The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present - that the corrupt manuscripts ... are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema - ACCURSED" [S11P61].

      It's hard to say what is going on here. The RCC did later on issue their own translation called the Rheims-Douay so it's hard to imagine they closed all investigation.
      So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic 'Church', the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.


      Actually, we just see assertions. There's a lot of back and forth that went on and this is neither the time nor the place to deal with those issues. I'm just interested in textual issues and we have none of those really being dealt with here.

      In Christ,
      Nick Peters
      (And I affirm the virgin birth)
      Assuming that the reports concerning the Council of Trent's proclamations are accurate

      They got some things right and other things wrong.

      Pretty much the same can be said for any church.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #63
        Time for the first part on the Jesuits.

        -----------

        What's first to discuss with the Jesuits? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

        So last time we covered looking at the RCC. Again, I am not interested in differences between Protestants and Catholics here. I am interested in the history of textual transmission and anything related to that. As always, the source material can be found here.
        In the previous chapter Satan used both Rome and the Roman Catholic 'Church'.

        In the previous chapter, we saw a bunch of assertions without primary resources cited. Unfortunately, more of the same here.
        In this chapter he will use the 'Jesuits'.

        "The founder of the Jesuits was a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola... [S2P232], As to his character, Ignatius "... was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal, and vindictive" [S1P88]. Later in life, it is said he was "... unruly and conceited ..." [S1P88].

        Said to be that way by who later in life? As for in his youth, so what? There's a number of great Christian people today who I am sure did not live holy and godly lives as youth.
        Also, it is this same Ignatius Loyola that: "... the Catholic Church has canonized and made Saint Ignatius" [S2P232].

        Well, that settles it doesn't it? He must have been a complete heathen. This might work if you're someone who is extremely anti-Catholic, but not for the majority of us. Also, it doesn't demonstrate problems with the text even if granted.
        "Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521 A.D.) so that his military career was over, Ignatius turned his thoughts to spiritual conquests and spiritual glory. Soon afterwards, he wrote a book called: "Spiritual Exercises", which did more than any other document to erect a new papal theocracy and to bring about the establishment of the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, Catholicism since the reformation is a new Catholicism. It is more fanatical and intolerant" [S2P232].

        Actually, it's more called the counter-reformation. Also, kind of amusing to see Johnson citing a source condemning fanaticism and intolerance.
        It is said that Ignatius Loyola "... produced an elite force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine Protestantism and 'heresy' throughout the world. Their training would require fourteen years of testing and trials designed to leave them with no will at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught that their only desire was to serve the Pope" [S1P88].

        It is said by who? How reliable is the source? We don't know. Johnson in this work has done everything he can to avoid primary sources. Also, of course they wanted to undermine Protestantism. Johnson wants to undermine Catholicism. Should I decree everything he says wrong then about the Catholic Church?
        "The head of the Jesuits is called the 'Black Pope' and holds the title of General, just as in the military. That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their church is reflected in Loyola's own words, "Let us be convinced that all is well and right when the superior commands it". Also: "... even if God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey him, as master and guide, because God ordained it to be so." He further elaborates: "We must see black as white, if the Church says so" [S1P88].

        The last line is from Ignatius but that is also because the Church was seen as an infallible authority. Also, the fact of words being left out concerns me. It looks like it doesn't concern Johnson.
        "The Jesuits were to be the Vatican's 'plainclothesmen'. They were founded to be a secret society, a society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the positions of leadership" [S1P89].

        Sounds like medieval conspiracy theory honestly. It would be nice to know what this is based on.
        "Politics are their main field of action, as all the efforts of these 'directors' concentrate on one aim: the SUBMISSION of the world to the papacy, and to attain this the heads must be conquered first" [S1P89].

        "The Jesuit priests were not required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In fact their dress was a major part of their disguise" [S1P89].

        And "Murder is not above the 'means' which might be necessary to reach the desired 'end'. The General of the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are committed by the members of this Satanic order" [S1P91].

        Certainly no bias here!
        "He [the Jesuit General] also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination ... as long as these wicked deeds were not publicly known and this cause a scandal" [S1P91].

        "That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following ... quote from Paris' book 'The Secret History Of The Jesuits'" [S1P91].

        "Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: ... A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to slander him or his community ..." [S1P91].

        I'm not here to say if this is true or not, but if you are condemning people, even those who are deceased, of great wicked acts, you need more evidence than just assertions from people years later without citing primary sources.

        Color me skeptical of again anything that Johnson says.

        In Christ,
        Nick Peters
        (And I affirm the virgin birth)
        What’s first to discuss with the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So last time we covered looking at the RCC. Again, I am not interested in differences between Protestants and Catholics here. I am interested in the history of textual transmission and anything related to that. As always, the source … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.1

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Part 2.

          -------------

          Do we have more corrupted verses? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

          So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we're responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let's start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
          The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus' father. Let's look in a 'modern' version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

          Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular 'modern' version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

          " ... and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him" [i.e. of Jesus].

          What do you mean "... and his father ..." was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus' father was NOT Joseph! Jesus' father was God!

          Now, let's look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

          "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him".

          For a 'modern' version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus' father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!

          Here! Here! Indeed! How can we indicate in any way that Joseph is the father of Jesus?! Of course, God is His Father! Absolutely! To the flames then with any translation, or should I say transgression, that says that Joseph is the Father of Jesus!

          Oh wait.....

          Look at Luke 2:48.

          And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why has t thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

          And that is in the KJV!

          How dare they! Surely Mary who had the virgin birth, which I do affirm, would know who the father of Jesus is! How dare she not say Joseph! That would mean Jesus is just an ordinary man and we are still in our sins! We have a big problem!

          How dare the KJV deny the virgin birth! (Which I do affirm)

          Now let's go to a common type of objection.
          Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, 'modern', versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.

          Let's see what the Authorized King James says:

          "For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

          This one verse, which summarizes Jesus' entire mission to earth, is either ignored in 'new' versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

          People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.

          This is a common problem with KJV-Onlyists. They look at the KJV as the perfect and then if there is any difference between the KJV and a modern translation, well the problem is the modern translation because they removed that verse. How do we know the verse was in the original? Because it's in the KJV and that's the perfect version!

          Never mind that this passage is paralleled in Luke 19:10 which does have the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. If this was a conspiracy of some sort, you would think that one would also be removed. So why would this not be in a manuscript?

          Odds are that many a scribe could copy from memory, perhaps from hearing a verse read in the worship service, and when he copies Matthew, he automatically fills in that part. Another possibility is sometimes sidenotes would be written and this could be one and sometimes that would be included in later copies. How do we know what the original most likely said? Because we have enough copies that we can cross-reference them. If you want a good reference book on textual criticism, I recommend this one.

          Thus far, two questions answered. Nothing convincing. Just shoddy research on the part of KJV-Onlyists.

          In Christ,
          Nick Peters
          (And I affirm the virgin birth)
          This is one of those things I've never really understood. I had to have a KJV for the first years at school (elementary) then we switched to NKJV then NIV. Honestly the passages all capture the meaning and convey it accurately.
          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Trent and the KJV

            ------------------

            What about the Council of Trent? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

            So we're returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we've come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here.
            The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

            However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

            In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may 'use'.

            Gotta love how the devil is always the boogeyman. Personally, there was good and bad both in the Reformation and I'm sure the same can be said for the counter-Reformation.
            "In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent" [S1P87]. "The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits" [S2P235]. The purpose was to: "... undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine" [S2P237].

            The latter could be true if you meant undermining Protestantism. I think at that time the genie was out of the bottle and there was no eliminating it. However, I have no reason to think they were trying to undermine the Bible.
            "The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that 'tradition' was on equal authority with the Bible" [S1P87].

            The Council of Trent also decreed that:

            "... justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was CURSED" [S1P87].

            The council's exact words were:

            "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be ANATHEMA" [S1P87].

            While I think this is an accurate set of quotations, would it have killed Johnson to go straight to the source?
            "Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this 'Church' to preserve his Words?" [S1P87].

            Apparently he had for 1,000 years.
            So this was the 'policy' of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

            Specifically, history records that:

            1) The Council of Trent condemned: "That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation ..."

            This could be since the RCC does put tradition up there with Scripture, but it needs to be shown, not asserted.
            2) The Council of Trent condemned: "That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ's Spirit".

            Again, this needs to be shown. I think there are things that are plain that the RCC would agree we can all understand, but also that there are difficult things that Protestant scholars would say are not plain and we do need help to understand.
            3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: "... they were apocryphal and not canonical".

            At this point, a writer could name those books, but I suppose Johnson doesn't want to.

            Either way, I have read the Apocrypha and I have no problem with Christians doing so.
            4) The Council of Trent also said that: "... lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy" [S2P237].

            5) "The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God" [S4P100].

            6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome's, corrupted, Latin Bible was: "... the authentic Bible of the Roman Church" [S4P99].

            Again, would it have been too hard to quote Trent directly?
            And lastly:

            "The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present - that the corrupt manuscripts ... are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema - ACCURSED" [S11P61].

            It's hard to say what is going on here. The RCC did later on issue their own translation called the Rheims-Douay so it's hard to imagine they closed all investigation.
            So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic 'Church', the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.

            Actually, we just see assertions. There's a lot of back and forth that went on and this is neither the time nor the place to deal with those issues. I'm just interested in textual issues and we have none of those really being dealt with here.

            In Christ,
            Nick Peters
            (And I affirm the virgin birth)
            "Douay-Rheims" FIFY
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #66
              What has the RCC done?

              -------------

              What about the RCC? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

              Okay. I made a goof. Somehow, I skipped over chapter 15 which is about the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we're going to go back and look at that one and see what has to be said. The original source can be found here.
              In chapter 7 of his book: "An Understandable History Of The Bible", Reverend Gipp gives us some insight into the Roman Catholic 'Church'. He first begins with a contrast:

              "It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope." (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.) [S1P80].

              So I did my looking up (Which is more than Johnson did I am sure) to find different responses to this just out of curiosity. One source said this would happen when we entered into Heaven. Others indicated that the church is not as dogmatic. One source said that the Protestant churches are rife with heresy and immorality. This might be interesting to look into more later, but it is not relevant now.
              "FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST." (Ephesians 2:8-9) [S1P80].

              As Reverend Gipp says: "Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe will depend on the authority you accept" [S1P80].

              I am sure Catholics have their own interpretation here. Again, this is not the goal of this research.
              "The Roman Catholic Church has always been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation is by grace, who needs mass? If salvation is by grace, who needs to fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he force a nation to obey him?" [S1P80]

              "Rome can only rule over ignorant fear-filled people. The true Bible turns 'unlearned and ignorant' men into gospel preachers and casts out 'all fear' [S1P80-81].

              For this latter one, I know some devout Catholics and these are the last words I would use to describe them.
              "The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church [S1P80-81].

              Therefore, Rome wanted a 'different' Bible. So:

              "Rome received the corrupted ... text ... and further revised it to suit her own needs" [S1P81]. "This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtlety. The Roman Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title "Lord" and "Christ" from the human name Jesus, having the thief on the cross address Him as "Jesus" instead of "Lord" (Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7" [S1P81].

              Well, Gipp doesn't tell us where this happened. I went and looked up these verses in the Douay-Rheims Bible online. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are there and Luke 23:42 refers to Jesus as Lord. Awfully strange how the RCC decided to hide those by putting them in their Bible.
              And so, summarizing the corrupted Minority Text: "Its two outstanding trademarks are that orthodox Christianity has never used it, and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that 'bloodily') supported it" [S1P69].

              Waiting for some argument for this in light of the above.
              As to the gospel of Christ: "Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church's reason for even existing? The answer is 'No'. The Roman Catholic 'Church' does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ" [S1P81].

              I would like to know where this is.
              Romanist Carl Adam admits this:

              "We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame - nay with pride - that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the gospel of Christ" [S1P81]
              Thus we see the TRUE 'doctrine' of Rome! Now, let's find out what Rome substitutes in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

              First, it's Karl Adam. Second, this sounds convincing, but as one who has seen political statements either made up or taken out of context, I wanted to look further. A deeper look at this section shows that

              "We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day."

              Anyone can read it here.
              "The vacancy left by the removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other 'saints' along with a chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time to 'think' about the true gospel" [S1P82].

              Asserted but not shown and has nothing to do with textual history.
              What else does history record about Rome? Some samples:

              1) "In the fourteenth century the church of Rome ... canonized Buddha as a saint" [S3P140].

              If done, this was done in error not realizing the figure was Buddha and was seen as St. Josaphat. If this did happen, then what I have found is that it has been undone.
              2) It was Rome who: "... burned persons who provided the Bible in a language the laity could read for themselves" [S3P140].

              This did happen with Tyndale at least.
              3) In the 16th century: "... the Roman Catholic Church put out the Majority Greek New Testament text, then placed the Textus Receptus, on 'The Index' of forbidden books" [S3P140].

              This appears to be accurate, though likely not because of a conspiracy or cover-up. Anyone could go and get that if they really wanted to from a Protestant publisher.
              4) It was Rome who was responsible for crucifying Christ (Matt.27:35).

              This assumes that the nation of Rome is equal to the RCC.
              5) It was Rome who was responsible for throwing Peter into prison (Acts 12:4 ).

              6) It was Rome who was responsible for cutting off James' head (Acts 12:1). and ....

              7) It was Rome who was responsible for killing Paul (2 Tim 4:6).

              And more of the same.

              Next time, we will return to the Jesuits.

              In Christ,
              Nick Peters
              (And I affirm the virgin birth)
              What about the RCC? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. Okay. I made a goof. Somehow, I skipped over chapter 15 which is about the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we’re going to go back and look at that one and see what has to be said. The original source can be found … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 15.1

              Comment


              • #67
                How bad were the Jesuits?

                ----------------

                What about the practices of the Jesuits? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks to them. For now, the source material can again be found here.
                These are some of the Jesuits' beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?

                "In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000. In 1589, when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by the name of Jacques Clement. Clement was called an 'angel' by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: ... Jacques Clement has done a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the King then let's do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let's put him to death ... we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein ..." [S1P91-92].

                As bad as that was, "The Jesuit's murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a Catholic rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by a Father Varade, A JESUIT PRIEST. In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been TAUGHT by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot" [S1P92-93].

                Six years later, "In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations" [S1P93].

                Well "This was the last straw! Henry the IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:

                ... On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writings of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of heretic 'tyrants' or those INSUFFICIENTLY DEVOTED to the Papacy's interests. The duke of Epernon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d'Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately what he heard in the confessional" [S1P93].

                All of these sound bad and there are no primary sources cited. I do know there is a lot of misinformation on the medieval church and that period altogether, but for the sake of argument. Let's accept all of this as true.

                So what?

                I mean, of course, it matters that it happened, but that doesn't show that the text has been altered. I suspect most Roman Catholics who would read this would be quite ashamed to hear these kinds of accounts (Assuming they are true) and I dare say there are likely many times in Protestant history we have been the villains as well.
                Reverend Gipp says: "This is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve his word? [S1P93-94]

                This is a horrible argument with just a simple question to show how bad it is.

                Who preserved the Old Testament before Jesus came?

                Why, yes. The nation of Israel. Now what was that nation like? Just read your Old Testament and you will see. They were hardly honoring to YHWH for the majority and yet, they were the ones that God used to preserve His word.

                God uses flawed human beings regularly. Aside from Jesus, they're the only kind of human beings He has.
                Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!

                Now I would say we have a lot more in common that not, but that's not relevant.
                Should Protestants form 'pacts' or 'agreements' with Catholics? I think not.

                The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.

                What happened in the past if true was horrible, but one should not stay there. If Johnson wants the RCC to answer for all the sins of its past, and to an extent they should, then we as Protestants should own up to ours.

                Either way, bad argument.

                In Christ,
                Nick Peters
                (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                What about the practices of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.2

                Comment


                • #68
                  The struggle begins

                  ---------------

                  What continued in history with the Jesuits and the Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                  So we're getting closer and closer to the time of the KJV. What's going to happen? It's time to look into the history here and see what happens. The link can be found here.
                  The previous chapter explored some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We concluded the two doctrines are 180 degrees apart. And we learned that Catholic doctrine is trying to infiltrate God's Bible.

                  We learned nothing of the sort. It was asserted they would want to do this.
                  At this point in our study of the Bible, God is using: The Greek text of Erasmus (1522 A.D.), the Tyndale English Bible (1525 A.D.), and Luther's German Bible (1525 A.D.).

                  Satan is using the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits.

                  I personally think God is using all of them and even if you include villains, well, God uses them too. As C.S. Lewis said, Judas served the purposes of God as did John.
                  In this chapter there will be ANOTHER attack on God's true Word.



                  T H E S T R U G G L E



                  "Sixty years elapsed from the close of the Council of Trent (1563) to the landing of Pilgrims in America. During those sixty years, England had been changing from a Catholic nation to a Bible-loving people. Since 1525, when Tyndale's Bible appeared, the Scriptures had obtained a wide circulation. As Tyndale foresaw, the influence of the Divine Word had weaned the people away from pomp and ceremony in religion. But this result had not been obtained without years of struggle. Spain at that time was not only the greatest nation in the world, but was also fanatically Catholic. All the new world belonged to Spain, she ruled the seas and dominated Europe. The Spanish sovereign and the Papacy united in their efforts to send into England bands of highly trained Jesuits. By these, plot after plot was hatched to place a Catholic ruler on England's throne" [S2P237-8].

                  Gotta love the start implying Catholics aren't Bible-loving. Still, I'm not wanting to argue against the historical claims. I'm willing to accept them for the sake ofa rgument.
                  "At the same time, the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible, back to Romanism. As a means to this end, they brought forth in English a Bible of their own ... If England could be retained in the Catholic column, Spain and England together would see to it that all America, north and south, would be Catholic. In fact, wherever the English-speaking race extended, Catholicism would reign. If this result were to be thwarted, it was necessary to meet the danger brought about by the Jesuit Version" [S2P238].

                  "So powerful was the swing toward Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so strong the love for Tyndale's Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength. Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests. Two of these colleges alone sent over, in a few years, not less than three hundred priests" [S2P238-9].

                  "The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at Rheims, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars. From here they kept the Pope informed of the changes of the situation in England, and from here they directed the movements of Philip II of Spain as he prepared a great fleet to crush England and bring it back to the feet of the Pope" [S2P239].

                  "The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits at Rheims" [S2P239]. The purpose of the Jesuit New Testament was: "... to do on the inside of England what the great navy of Philip II was to do on the outside. One was to be used as a moral attack, the other as a physical attack - both to reclaim England" [S2P237-9].

                  Earlier, I had said that I had used the RCC Bible being talked about here when Johnson claimed some verses had been taken out and I saw that was nonsense. I am pleased to see it looks like I have been right about where he was going.
                  We pick up the history of the Bible in 1582:

                  And we will pick up next time.

                  In Christ,
                  Nick Peters
                  (And I affirm the virgin birth)


                  What continued in history with the Jesuits and the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So we’re getting closer and closer to the time of the KJV. What’s going to happen? It’s time to look into the history here and see what happens. The link can be found here. The previous … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.1

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    It is sad to see what leads Johnson to rejoicing.

                    --------------------

                    What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                    Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I'm going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after all. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

                    Johnson puts this in a number of sections and I will do the same.

                    The Spiritual Attack
                    "About 1582 ... the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale's English Version" [S2P233].

                    "The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity" [S2P239].

                    "Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call ... to ... undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version" [S2P239-240].

                    Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. "With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology" [S2P240].

                    Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle ...

                    The problem with all of this is we have no statements from Catholic and/or Jesuit sources. It reminds me of what we say happens in politics on the conservative side. You get a leftist to present their case and then another leftist to say what they think about the conservative case.

                    The Physical Attack
                    "Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war - they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement" [S2P240].

                    Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan's lies. With Drake, a type of 'David' was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.

                    Now, which side do you think God was on?

                    I use it to the experts on war history to comment on this. For the last question though, first off, I think the response from a Civil War discussion is better and I think it was Lincoln who said it. We should hope we are on God's side. Second, I am not convinced God has a "side" in this. It could be a case of "A pox on both your houses." This is not to say neither side is Christian, but both were acting outside of the Christian tradition.

                    The Outcome: God Protects His Own
                    Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:

                    "... the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power" [S2P240].

                    Hallelujah! Praise God!

                    I would think a more fitting response would be mourning like was done in Judges when Benjamin had been defeated. Yes, they were in the wrong, but they were still the brothers of Israel.

                    The Perfect Masterpiece
                    "Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece" [S2P242].

                    This perfect masterpiece: "... was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament" [S2P242].

                    English Protestantism: "... gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, - The King James Bible, called 'The Miracle of English Prose'" [S2P242].

                    And if this is not idolatry, it comes awfully close. I wonder if Johnson thinks the Apocrypha is part of this perfect masterpiece. Oh, wait. Just did a check. He's never mentioning it again after chapter 15. I'm not surprised.

                    In Christ,
                    Nick Peters
                    (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                    What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I’m going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.2

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      And so it begins

                      -----------

                      What about the making of the KJV? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                      So now we're finally getting to the making of the KJV. in all that I say, I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJV-onlyism. The KJV is not a perfect Bible, but it's not a horrible one either and thankfully has been used for the salvation of many. As always, the link can be found here.
                      "Just prior to the translation of the King James Bible, England had broken free of the yoke of Rome. Shortly after the Authorized Version was published, England once again started down the road back to Rome. For a brief 'parenthesis' in English history, England was free of Roman influence just long enough to translate and propagate a perfect Bible" [S1P161].

                      Idolatry aside, one wonders what constitutes a perfect Bible and how can you know. Did we not have a perfect Bible in the original manuscripts? Those were written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Did God have to wait until 17th century English to get a perfect Bible?
                      The King James Bible "... was produced during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English language was at its height of purity" [S1P183].

                      How could you tell English was at its height of purity? English like all language changes over time. Who is it who says that it has reached the height and on what grounds?
                      And God foresaw the widespread use of the English language. Notice that:

                      "English is the language of this world. English is taught to Russian pilots, because it is universal. It is learned by Oriental businessmen, because it is universal. It was the first language spoken on the moon" [S1P40].

                      English is universal, but this gets us to the problem of the Koran as well. Muslims will tell you unless you read the Koran in Arabic, you do not understand it. What are we to say of Wycliffe Bible translators translating the Bible tirelessly into the languages of the people they evangelize? They just won't understand the Bible really until they learn KJV English? Is there any purpose to even study Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic anymore?
                      And, God gave us the BEST English:

                      "The English language in 1611 was in the very best condition ... Each word was broad, simple, and generic. That is to say, words were capable of containing in themselves not only their central thoughts, but also all the different shades of meaning which were attached to that central thought.

                      Since then, words have lost that living, pliable breadth. Vast additions have been made to the English vocabulary during the past 300 years, so that several words are now necessary to convey the same meaning which formerly was conveyed by one" [S2P246-247].

                      And to which I say, "Says who?" Who says this was the best. Yes. Language has changed and it has also changed because we have realities today they didn't back then. How would you say "Smartphone" in Elizabethan English? How would you talk about the threat of nuclear war in that language?
                      "The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in 'modern English' are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into a degenerated vocabulary of today!" [S1P41].

                      I am curious what I am to think about the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the times of the Bible....
                      And so, "Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship" [S2P244-245].

                      This is quite likely.

                      And today that scholarship has greatly enriched with more and more information.

                      And as words have changed, so we have to translate the Bible at times so people can understand it better.

                      We'll continue next time.

                      In Christ,
                      Nick Peters
                      (And I affirm the virgin birth)


                      What about the making of the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So now we’re finally getting to the making of the KJV. in all that I say, I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJV-onlyism. The KJV is not a perfect Bible, but it’s not a horrible one either and thankfully … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.1

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Is the KJV perfect?

                        ------------------

                        Who put together the KJV? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                        We're continuing our look at this book. Today, we're going to look some at the men who put this together. Next time we discuss this, it will be the documents. For now, the source material is here.
                        "On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version" [S16P7].

                        And, it was understood that if 54 scholars were not enough:

                        "... ALL the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment" [S2P257].

                        "The Kings order was carried out with utmost zeal and knowledge in an orderly manner" [S9P1] and "... because of the careful planning the whole project was completed in less than seven years" [S8P64].

                        Interesting, but not really relevant. However, I do want to point out that when it came to Constantine, we heard loads about his character. Why is it that when we come to what is supposed to be the perfect Bible, we hear NOTHING about the character of the man who ordered that one, good or bad? If it was relevant for Constantine, wouldn't it be relevant here?


                        T H E M E N O F T H E K I N G J A M E S B I B L E

                        "Without any question there never has been a greater group of scholars gathered together at one time than the ... translators of the King James Version" [S10P5].

                        I guess Nicea just didn't really cut it then or any of the early church councils at all.
                        "The most qualified of the entire English speaking world were summoned ..." [S9P1]. "They were all eminent scholars, and they all had great reverence for the Word of God, being wholly committed to its inspiration and infallibility ..." [S13P7].

                        Okay. And? What follows from this?
                        "No one can study the lives of those men who gave us the King James Bible without being impressed with their profound and varied learning" [S2P258].

                        And?
                        "Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the manuscripts which they handled as the Holy Word of God" [S1P182].

                        We will see when we get to Westcott and Hort if they use any primary sources to back these claims.
                        "Let me show you a few of the translators of the Authorized Version. JOHN BOIS was able to read the Bible in Hebrew when five years of age! When 14 he was a proficient Greek scholar and for years he spent from 4 o'clock in the morning til eight at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages... LANCELOT ANDREWS was the overall chairman, who was fluent in twenty languages, the greatest linguist of his day. He spent five hours a day in prayer and was so respected by the kings that orders were given, whenever Andrews was in court, there was to be no levity, no joking ... JOHN CHEDDERTON, he knew Greek, Hebrew and Latin as well as you and I know English, and better" [S10P5].

                        Again, so what? That does not mean that their work was perfect.


                        T H E O R G A N I Z E D A P P R O A C H

                        "Originally 54 scholars were on the list but deaths and withdrawals reduced it finally to 47" [S8P64].

                        "These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language" [S16P7].

                        "Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinion were ironed out. It put the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers" [S4P102-103].

                        All of the work was done in the open.

                        This is fascinating if true, and I'm not to say if it is or isn't.

                        But none of this means the KJV is a perfect translation for all time. We know this because the translators themselves said so. See their preface here.
                        Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where.…A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

                        I can't imagine why KJV-onlyists don't listen to this....

                        In Christ,
                        Nick Peters
                        (And I affirm the virgin birth)


                        Who put together the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. We’re continuing our look at this book. Today, we’re going to look some at the men who put this together. Next time we discuss this, it will be the documents. For now, the source material is here. “On July 22, 1604, … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.2

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Let's look at the KJV manuscripts!

                          --------------

                          What manuscripts did the KJV scholars use? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                          Okay. It looks like we're finally getting into some substance, but I suspect that even what should be substantial will not be. As always, the original material can be found here.
                          "... it was ... the principle of the numerical majority of the readings which gave us the ... Textus Receptus" [S13P17].

                          "Dean Burgon a learned textural critic and collator of Manuscripts, Presbendary Miller, Dr. Scrivener and others, uphold the Textus Receptus because of the immense number of manuscripts which are in agreement with it" [S4P28].

                          Good for them. Okay. Why did they? Unfortunately, Johnson doesn't tell us this. Instead it's more of the "Godly man in authority" argument.
                          The KJV agrees with the massive amount of witnesses (more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts) and also: "Virtually no [KJV] MSS are known to be copies of any others ..." [S6P57].

                          This doesn't really make sense. This would mean that none of the KJV manuscripts are alike and thus all of them would have variants. This also doesn't say anything about the Old Testament manuscripts.
                          Thus, when we say that the majority of the 5,000 witnesses agree with the King James Bible, we are saying that these 5,000 witnesses are 'INDEPENDENT' witnesses.

                          I am still wondering how this makes sense. The manuscripts disagree and yet all are witnesses? I do understand how that works in general, but saying it applies to only one school doesn't make sense.
                          "We can safely conclude from scholars on both sides of the issue that the vast majority of manuscripts agrees with the readings in the King James Version ... [And] Not only does the KJV have a firmer foundation numerically, but also geographically. It comes from numerous localities ..." [S3P479].

                          It would be nice to hear those scholars on the other side. Color me suspicious that one side will say "Yes, the manuscripts agree, but I prefer the other version."
                          Thus, the testimony to the validity of the King James Bible is deep: 5,000 independent witnesses. And, the testimony is wide: these witnesses come from a variety of locations.

                          Quite likely true, but what of it? Versions today use all manuscripts as well.
                          But what about the corrupted minority of Greek texts? Did the King James translators know about these manuscripts? Did they use them?

                          History documents that:

                          "... the translators of 1611 had available ALL of the variant readings of these manuscripts and rejected them" [S2P254].

                          All? Doubtful. New manuscripts are being uncovered regularly. Furthermore, why was any particular variant rejected? According to the above, it looks like the manuscripts the KJV translators used themselves had variants.
                          Thus, the King James translators knew about the corrupted minority of manuscripts and they rejected this corruption.

                          Corrupted implies intention. That needs to be shown.
                          The KJV translators went on to make a Bible which has been shown to be in agreement with the majority of the Greek texts.

                          To make the King James Bible, the translators selected and used a representative sample of the majority texts. This was easy to do because the majority texts agree with one another.

                          They agree, but they aren't copies, and a sample was used. If you're confused by now, you're not the only one.
                          Specifically:

                          "The [KJV] translators drew on the earlier 16th century translations, such as the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible, but especially on Tyndale's translation. His was a very great influence on the Authorised Version - it has been said that some 80% or more of the AV derives from Tyndale. In a sense the AV was the culmination of nearly a century of Bible translation ... it came out of the Reformation which was the greatest revival since the first Christian Pentecost" [S13P8].

                          As for the Geneva Bible, it: "... was the first English Bible to have verse numbers; the first to use italics for words that were not in the original languages, but necessary for understanding the English; the first to use the Roman type, rather than the Gothic (Old English); and they were small and inexpensive" [S9P2].

                          The King James Bible followed the example of the Geneva Bible. In other words, in the KJV: "All words which were not found in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts, were placed in italics. In this way these men [the KJV translators] made a vast difference between the words given by inspiration of God, and the words originating in the thoughts of men. This is the way it should be" [S4P103].

                          ( Reader note: 'Modern' versions DO NOT separate God's Words from man's words. Instead the two are mixed together ).

                          Gotta love this final comment here. The translators of modern translations have to be corrupt after all.
                          "In conclusion, recent scholarship demonstrates that the majority of manuscripts, as seen in the traditional Greek Textus Receptus, and its translation, the King James Version, represent the earliest, broadest (numerically and geographically) and most consistent edition of the New Testament" [S3P503].

                          Without citing any of the scholars on the other side, we can tell what scholarship thinks! Incredible!

                          So we had something that should have been substantial, and now we see there was no substance.

                          We'll continue next time.

                          In Christ,
                          Nick Peters
                          (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                          What manuscripts did the KJV scholars use? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. Okay. It looks like we’re finally getting into some substance, but I suspect that even what should be substantial will not be. As always, the original material can be found here. “… it was … the principle of the … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.3

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            What about the reviews?

                            ------------

                            What was the response to the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                            So as we continue, now we get to the rave reviews of the KJV. It’s strange to point to what would normally be considered the approval of men. Also, I can point to high praise of modern translations, but I suspect that will not count. At any rate, the source material is here.
                            What do you get when you start with the true Word of God and then add: the anointing of the Holy Spirit, godly men in excellent health, an optimum work environment, an organized work approach, and a system of quality control though comprehensive peer reviews?

                            Gotta love the stacking of the deck. It’s noteworthy that nothing is said about the preface of the KJV which we have talked about in earlier posts.
                            You get the following:

                            “The KJV reverberates with eternal familiarity” [S6Pvi].

                            Of course, Johnson doesn’t tell us who said this. No. I’m not going back and checking all his sources to find justification for one quote.
                            Of the Bible: Queen Victoria said: “… That book accounts for the supremacy of England”, George Washington said: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”, Patrick Henry boasted: “The bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed” [S9P3].

                            While Washington did use the KJV, it doesn’t follow that he means only the KJV here. I couldn’t find what Bible Henry used, but a user of modern translations could easily agree with these statements. The same applies to Queen Victoria.
                            “Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST example of English literature that the world HAS EVER SEEN …” [S2P260].

                            Someone point me to these atheists and skeptics and others please.
                            Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as: “one of the FINEST samples of writing styles IN EXISTENCE” [S3P212].

                            And someone who agrees with modern translations can affirm this as well.
                            “… 250 different versions of the Bible were tried in England between 1611 and now, but they ALL FELL FLAT before the majesty of the King James” [S2P253].

                            No references are given for this. It would be interesting to explore what other factors could be in place, but unfortunately, Johnson doesn’t bother with that.
                            “[The King James Bible] was accepted in common use by the people, without coercion, and has been blessed of God as no other book of any language …” [S9P1].

                            The KJV: “… has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the most beautiful, it bears the most fruit, it produces spiritual revival, it is easiest to memorize, its readers are the most zealous to read it often” [S9P2].

                            It would be interesting to see how anyone could demonstrate any of these claims.
                            “But upon the whole the version of 1611 … is probably the best version ever made for public use. It is not simply a translation, but a living reproduction of the original scriptures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they were learned. It reads like an original work, such as the prophets and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for English readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich resources of the English language, the most cosmopolitan of all modern languages, and blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspiration from this pure well of English undefiled. Its best recommendation is its universal adoption and use … Next to Christianity itself, the version of 1611 is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all that is trulyvaluable in our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and happiness to our domestic, social, and national life” [S6P96].

                            This is all well and good, but it doesn’t make the case for Johnson. You can believe this and still not be a KJV-onlyist. Of course, primary sources are never used.
                            “The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text … an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes IMPOSSIBLE strains on the imagination” [S2P34]

                            This is similar also to claims made about the Koran and about the Book of Mormon and the account of the seventy in making the Septuagint.
                            “Herein lies the greatest weakness of contemporary textual criticism. Denying to the Majority text any claim to represent the actual form of the original text, it is nevertheless unable to explain its rise, its comparative uniformity, and its dominance in any satisfactory manner. All of these factors CAN be rationally accounted for, however, IF THE MAJORITY TEXT REPRESENTS SIMPLY THE CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM THE VERY FIRST” [S2P34].

                            And isn’t the last one the question to be asked? Also, go talk to any of these scholars. They easily can explain what happened.

                            We will continue next time.

                            In Christ,
                            Nick Peters
                            (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                            What was the response to the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So as we continue, now we get to the rave reviews of the KJV. It’s strange to point to what would normally be considered the approval of men. Also, I can point to high praise of modern translations, but … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.4

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              What about the new versions?

                              -------------------

                              What about modern translations? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                              So now we're about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I'm actually going to skip because it's just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here.
                              In the last chapter we learned that:

                              "... The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY ... Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN ... Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE ... The KJV ... has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE ... the version of 1611 ... is probably the BEST version EVER MADE ... etc. etc. etc.

                              Actually, we just heard this asserted. One can say the KJV was a fine work for its time, but that doesn't mean it will be the same today. If anything, this sounds eerily like the way that Muslims treat the Qur'an.
                              Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for 'modern versions':

                              ... the King James Bible is too hard to understand ... its words are archaic ... people don't understand it ... it has thee's and thou's .... today's Christian needs is a 'more readable' version ... etc. etc.

                              There is some validity to this. The English language has changed and we need translations that match the way of the usage of language for our time. One can say the KJV was beautiful for its time and still does maintain some great beauty today, but it is also a difficult translation to understand using words and idioms we no longer use.
                              These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the ... BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN'T.

                              So, should we believe:
                              1. A) The 'non-financially' compensated comments of the first view?

                              or:
                              1. B) Should we believe 'salesmen' and 'marketing ads' ?

                              We should believe what is true regardless of what the motivations are for someone saying it. I could just as well say that Johnson is a salesman for the position of KJV-onlyism so should I believe him? Of course, I can also point out that he is only giving one side of the equation.
                              Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let's get the facts.

                              Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that that will happen. To get the facts, one actually needs to consult both sides of the equation. Johnson does not have any opposing sources in his bibliography. He only quotes KJV-onlyists and then what they have to say about his opponents.
                              Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several 'claims'. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.

                              And throughout this work I have been testing Johnson for truth and so far, he isn't doing good. We'll see if this gets any better, but I doubt that it will.

                              In Christ,
                              Nick Peters
                              (And I affirm the virgin birth)


                              What about modern translations? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. So now we’re about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I’m actually going to skip because it’s just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here. In the last chapter we learned that: “… The KJV reverberates … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.1

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                How easy is it to read the KJV?

                                -----------------

                                How readable is the KJV? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                                This time, I'm not quoting everything. There is information that is just bit by bit that I find tedious. This is not hiding anything. I always link to the material here and I recommend you go and read it. Anyway, let's answer the question of if the material is more readable or not in the KJV.
                                One persistent advertisement is that new versions are 'easier to read'. If this is true, it is easily verified.

                                The Flesch-Kincaid research company has a formula which measures the grade level of a book. The higher the grade level the more education is required. And, the lower the grade level, the less education is required.

                                The Flesch-Kincaid formula is:

                                Grade level = (.39) times (the average number of words per sentence) + (11.8) times (the average number of syllables per word) minus (15.59)

                                From this formula; fewer syllables per word lowers the grade level and/or shorter sentences lowers the grade level. Both make sense.

                                Now, let's compare some 'modern' versions to the King James Bible.

                                In her excellent book "New Age Bible Versions", on page 196, G.A. Riplinger gives us the Flesch-Kincaid readability results of various 'Bibles'. In her first analysis, she compares the average grade level required to read the first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments.

                                Leaving aside Kiplinger as a source, I have a few concerns here. For one thing, this could work well all things being equal if we use modern language, but what if we don't? What if we use an ancient book still? For instance, in this case, I went to the metaphysics of Aristotle which I got here.

                                So what did I get?
                                (https://archive.org/stream/aristotle...1aris_djvu.txt) has an average reading ease of about 80.6 of 100. It should be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

                                There are PhDs who are struggling to understand this work. No. It will not be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

                                So next I went here to the first part of the Summa of Aquinas dealing with questions of existence. Results?

                                (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm) has an average reading ease of about 62.5 of 100. It should be easily understood by 14 to 15 year olds.

                                Again, PhDs are struggling and debating with this.

                                I next went to Romeo and Juliet.

                                That one was deemed too complicated, yet I bet many of us understand that more than we do Aristotle and Aquinas.

                                How about the transcript of Joe Biden's inauguration address?

                                That one got the same rating as Aquinas, which means you would have a harder time understanding that address than you would understanding Aristotle.

                                Finally, I put in my article on the virgin birth, which I do affirm. The results are it is fitting for 10 to 11 year-olds. There you have it folks. I'm writing material that is slightly harder to understand than Aristotle. Never knew it.

                                So did Johnson ever bother to check on any of this? You already know the answer. The test itself could be fine, all things being equal, but there are some problems.

                                There is material on memorization after which Johnson says the following:
                                READER NOTE: The Word is "The Sword of the Spirit". When G.A. Riplinger says that: "The memorization of scripture is a necessary self-defense against sin" and that: "simple sentence structure and single syllable words ... simplify this task"; I believe she has hit on a very SUBTLE but EXTREMELY important point.

                                The memorization of scripture REQUIRES repetition. And, it requires hearing the SAME words again and again. When each 'modern' version, substitutes different words (so it can 'sell itself' as a 'new' version), it hinders and confuses the memorization of scripture.

                                When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, I suspect He DID NOT have scrolls of scripture with him. Nor do I think He fumbled around with which version to quote back to Satan. The only thing Jesus had was the Word, memorized! Think about it!

                                The problem is that if you look at the same story in different Gospels, you would find different words being used. Which is it? What you will normally find is the same idea is being expressed. Frankly, unless you're quoting the words in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, you're already not using the exact words that were used.

                                And yes, there were variants in Old Testament manuscripts. What Johnson is doing is treating the text like it's a magic book. You have to say the words the exact right way or else the effect won't happen.

                                Now I will grant that there are many passages I still remember in the KJV. John 3:16 anyone? But I do know I have many other passages memorized and even if I don't have the exact words, I have the voice that is being used. It's ironic that in wanting to defend a position he considers orthodox, Johnson really has a view of language that is pagan.

                                In Christ,
                                Nick Peters
                                (And I affirm the virgin birth)
                                How readable is the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out. This time, I’m not quoting everything. There is information that is just bit by bit that I find tedious. This is not hiding anything. I always link to the material here and I recommend you go and read it. Anyway, let’s … Continue reading Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.2

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X