The Millenary Petition and why it’s important to women ministers

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…

Very interesting…

Contrary to Opinion, the KJV WAS NOT published in 33ad

  • 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).

via News Releases – American Bible Society Newsroom –

HT – James McGrath on Facebook

Big, big #facepalm…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jack the Ripper, Revised Version 1881, and KJVO Foolishness

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.’

KJV-Onlyism and Imperialism


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:

  1. It had no well-known antecedent
  2. It attacked the KJV and those who use it
  3. It supported the Critical Text position
  4. It implied that anyone who uses the KJV does so because it was the Bible of imperial Britain

Addressing KJV-Onlyism…Again « Fundamentally Changed.

There is nothing in the bible to demand an adherence to one particular translation. If you think so, show me.