Unsettled ChristianityOne blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
I’m currently writing a paper on KJV Onlyism and came across the Millenary Petition which supposedly was the initiator for the Hampton Roads Conference. What were the Puritans railing against?
Part of the problems which they saw in the Anglican Church were women who administered the sacrament of baptism. Following this is the charge that only men be admitted to the ministry… Only men of qualifications though.
In the Church service: that the cross in baptism, interrogatories ministered to infants, confirmation, as superfluous, may be taken away; baptism not tobe ministered by women, and so explained; the cap and surplice not urged; that examination may go before the communion; that it be ministered with a sermon; that divers terms of priests, and absolution, and some other used, with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book, may be corrected; the longsomeness of service abridged, Church songs and music moderated to better edification; that the Lord’s Day be not profaned; the rest upon holy days not so strictly urged; that there may be a uniformity of doctrine prescribed; no Roman Catholic opinion to be any more taught or defended; no ministers charged to teach their people to bow at the name of Jesus; that the canonical Scriptures only be read in the Church.
II. Concerning Church ministers: that none hereafter be admitted into the ministry but able and sufficient men…
Um… Well, that explains some of the translation choices in the King James now doesn’t it?
I have to wonder if this area, women administering the sacrament of baptism in the Anglican Church before 1611…
- Seventeen percent of those surveyed believe the King James Bible was first released shortly after the time of Christ.
- Younger Americans (age 18 to 26), often categorized as considerably less religious than older Americans (age 65 and older), are equally likely to be unsure of why the King James Bible was significant (34 percent vs. 33 percent respectively).
- Non-Christians or those with no faith are approximately twice as likely to know when the King James Bible was published (32 percent), than are non-practicing Christians (17 percent).
- Approximately half (45 percent) of all Bible readers use the King James Bible; far fewer say they read the New International Version (10 percent).
- Approximately six out of 10 adults who own a Bible own a King James Bible (57 percent) whereas only one out of eight Bible owners have a New International Version (12 percent).
HT - James McGrath on Facebook
Big, big #facepalm…
- Hitchens Reads The King James Bible (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- George Washington starts a tradition (manifoldgreatness.wordpress.com)
- Thoughts on the King James Bible (kiwianglo.wordpress.com)
- The King James Version (KJV): The Fool’s-Gold Standard of Bible Translation (goddidntsaythat.com)
- King James editions marred by mistakes (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
WACO, Texas (ABP) — Like the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel’s “wheel in the middle of a wheel,” King James-only churches represent a resilient subculture within the subculture of American fundamentalist Protestants, some scholars insist.
King James-only churches believe God preserved the inerrancy of the 1611 translation of the English Bible — perhaps even using it to correct errors in earlier versions of Scripture, said Jeffrey Straub, professor of historical theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minn.
“Few issues have had the kind of polarizing effect that the battle over Bible versions in general, and the battle for the KJV in particular, have had within some segments of American Protestantism,” Straub told a group during a conference at Baylor University marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
For King James-only Christians, he explained, “the use of the King James 1611 — as opposed to corruption of the KJV which include the New King James and even the New Scofield Reference Bible which updated certain words within the text, rendering it a corruption of the original KJV — has become the litmus test for Christian orthodoxy. The sign of a biblical church becomes the Bible version used from the pulpit.”
Okay, where have I heard that before… that litmus test bit… where you have believe some silliness which is not historical what.so.ever…. now, where have I heard that before… let me see….
Over at the KJVO Debate Blog, this comment was posted:
I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the Church of the Laodiceans and the Church in Philadelphia because after all, that is when the Laodiceans started to accept the old/new Bible which after 7 years were rewarded for their deeds by being visited by Jack the Ripper (by their fruits ye shall know them). The Philadelphian Church Age will continue as long as the Rapture because there are going to be those who stand for the faith once delivered to the saints until that time. Revelation 3 says (well at least it does in my Bible) …
Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
I reckon he means that the KJVO was once delivered to the Saints – Peter, Paul, they all used it, or so I have been told.
I challenge any KJVO’er to show me in the biblical text the validation for the KJVO doctrine, which is new, developed, and never heard before a 7th Day Adventist started the myth of the ‘perfect bible.’
Recently, there was a bit of a lively discussion when I suggested that some people take the KJVO position because it harkens back to the days of British world dominance. While not my intention, this article seems to have really irritated people. I found that the reasons for the irritation were odd since they had nothing to do with the questions asked in the article itself. People argued that:
- It had no well-known antecedent
- It attacked the KJV and those who use it
- It supported the Critical Text position
- It implied that anyone who uses the KJV does so because it was the Bible of imperial Britain
There is nothing in the bible to demand an adherence to one particular translation. If you think so, show me.
In this post, I just found out that a KJVO Bible college has just made it public that they will not be teaching Greek in preparing men for ministry because their preserved KJV Bible for the English speaking people makes Greek obsolete. This is the official statement of Grace Baptist College in Gaylord Michigan. (from here)
Some of the greatest lies told by the KJVO movement, promulgated by Ruckman and Riplinger, are those about Westcott and Hort. For example, this blogger has bought hook, line, and sinker what the KJVO camp is putting out. Note that he, without any real evidence, places everyone who reads anything but the KJV (please, pick a year and a publisher) into the camp of the damned:
If you are reading one of these versions, it is a compilation of the work of Satan, Demons, drunks, necromancers, channelers, ghost followers, Nazi staff members, Lucifer worshipers, Plato, Origin, Philo, and many other NEW AGE (demon inspired) thinkers who want nothing more than to bring in a One World Government under a New World Order, with the Anti-Christ as the ruler of the world, and Marxism as the world political system. What angers me the most is that supposedly God fearing ministers of the Gospel have, like the Pied Piper, led their congregations by a passive attitude that will open up the door to the religion of the Anti-Christ one day.
He goes on to quote Riplinger who quotes Westcott and Hort. Like most KJVO’ers, she (who I find an odd sort to be followed by fundamentalists who insist that women cannot teach and divorce is not an option. Yeah, check her marriage count) takes quotes out-of-place and contextualizes them according to her purpose. So, read the blog above and then check out the numerous sites, such as this one, which gives you the full quotes, not just a bit and a piece here or there.
I really don’t much care for Jack Chick, but to place him along side Hitler and Henry Ford?
For those of you who know of Peter ‘ I burn God’s Word’ Fuhrman, he is visiting blogs and forums under the name of PeterAV. Recently, he posted a comment to a fellow-blogger’s site suggesting that the only real KJV was the PCE one, which arrived on the scene only in 1900.
You can find the discussion, in part here.
So now, it is not the KJV-1611 or the Oxford or Cambridge, etc… but the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) which is the final authority. I mean final, this time, not like the many finals before the PCE, but really final. Finally.
I find this move by this ‘pastor’ as disgusting as you can get.