Want Some Answers ???

King James Error

Hi JJ. You posted Gilberts 'hate' poem,

>By Gilbert Lugo
>You N.I.V., You N.I.V.,
>Oh, how much I do hate thee.
>You're loved by every A-POS-TATE,
>But my abhorrance for you is great.
>Bible believers hate you too,
>Many souls are damned because of you.
>You came from corrupt manuscripts,
>Which were dicated from the devils lips.
>You'll return from whence you came,
>To burn forever in the flames.
>You attack my Lord Jesus Christ,
>You're used by people, sweet and nice,
>Deceiving and being deceived,
>Because it is you that they believed.
>You'll rot in hell with your author, Satan,
>Reading you is synonymous with pratin'.
>I squeeze you when I get stressed,
>Of all the toilet tissue, you're the best.
>But you're not even worthy of that,
>Because you yourself are a piece of crap.
>--Gilbert Lugo
>Love in Christ,

Christmas Greetings J.J. Good to hear from you and read your mails. I wouldn't worry about what the KJ radicals say about other Bible versions or the NIV. Gilbert can 'hate' the NIV if he likes, [strange kind of 'hate']. But a poem can't remove what we know today, and what they didn't know in 1611. Nor could it change my mind. Would a poem change yours?
>>Nay alas ye barbarian;
>>Ye cannot speak English like Me,
>>So ye cannot know God like Me;
>>Thy Bible, thou hast, canst be true like Mine,
>>Thou canst be sure in any part, lest ye read Mine,
>>Woe is thee, for Jehovah truly only loveth Me.
>>By Mr Radically Wrong

Yes, Radical's god is racist and discriminatory, because millions don't have a firm grasp on Kings English to use the KJV. There's millions illiterate in English and their own tongue with no possibility to learn. So I believe God communicates with new versions, & with illiterate and fluent in their own languages (1 Cor.12:13-26 Gal.3:28). As from the beginning (Acts 2:7-11) God intended His Word to be read, but if He only communicates ambiguously millions have no chance of understanding (1 Cor.14:6-9).

The KJ debate is all about long ecclesiastical usage. Any version that's been around a long time and found it's way into the writings and faith of the churches is hard to break with, even when out dated. Luther had the same problem when facing the RCC over doctrine.

Jerome's dictum was that - 'ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ'. Yet some regarded him as, 'enemy of the faith', because he revised the old Latin version. His new version [Vulgate] was badly received because the older version was loved and respect. Jerome attempted to relieve the text of errors that had crept into it. In time the worth of his labours were recognised.

Men then went to the other extreme, they made the Vulgate the standard text of the NT from the original tongues, notwithstanding that it was only a Latin translation from the original tongues [not Gk]. For years it was the only version officially recognised by the Roman Catholic Church. They believed it was inspired and without error. Any translating into the common tongue of the people was considered corrupting Scripture. So the Papists wickedly withheld Scripture from people and translators were martyred and persecuted as heretics.

For many years, Catholicism would never translate from any other text than the Vulgate. The high view of the Vulgate was based on its long ecclesiastical usage and not dictated by a judgment in matters of scholarly criticism. So for years "sellers of the Word" were cursed from the alters of churches and excommunicated. Bonfires of Bibles blazed. Men were flung into dungeons for selling it as the church attempted to control the disputation of books.

John Wickliffe's most important work was his translation of the Bible into English. The zeal of the bishops to suppress the Scriptures promoted its sale, they even dug-up his bones and burnt them. The Lollards [Wyclif's followers] helped spread this Bible and many were martyred. The bishops would fasten about their necks scraps of this Bible [found in their possession] and burnt them alive.

In the 16th century William Tyndale risked his life to translate the Scriptures. The bishops called it a false erroneous translation and "full of heresies"; he died as a martyr in 1538. Some were martyred for no other reason than reading it. Likewise Thomas Cranmer and his translation were opposed.

Appears to me KJ radicals hold similar views to the old Roman Catholic Church. They would deny God's Word from the ordinary common person - that would mean the death of Christianity.

The KJ sect would withhold Scripture from millions of needy souls, by insisting translating is corrupting Scripture. This would steal what belongs to the whole Church - good or bad English speakers. God has given His Word for all His people of every nation and generation. Perhaps you could explain, if I'm wrong.