Amazing video on the history of anti-Semitism and Replacement Theology

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Just saw this new upload by Rock Harbor Church and thought I'd share,

it's one of the best presentations I've seen on the history of anti-Semitism and how Replacement Theology even fueled it at times, with references to John Calvin and even Martin Luther.

Really eye-opening.


-James
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Do some of the chapter headings in the 1611 edition of the KJV teach replacement theology?

KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Doug Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.).

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190).

W. H. Griffith Thomas wrote: “In the Authorized Version the headings of the chapters from Isaiah 40 to 66 frequently refer to ‘the Church‘ as though the various messages in that magnificent section had reference to the present dispensation, and to the body of Christ. But when the chapters are considered, it will be found that they have no reference to the Church at all, but to Israel“ (How We Got our Bible, p. 110).
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
12,504
Reaction score
69
Points
48
Do some of the chapter headings in the 1611 edition of the KJV teach replacement theology?

KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Doug Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.).

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190).

W. H. Griffith Thomas wrote: “In the Authorized Version the headings of the chapters from Isaiah 40 to 66 frequently refer to ‘the Church‘ as though the various messages in that magnificent section had reference to the present dispensation, and to the body of Christ. But when the chapters are considered, it will be found that they have no reference to the Church at all, but to Israel“ (How We Got our Bible, p. 110).
Aren't we thankful that "chapter headings" are not Scripture? Neither are footnotes, cross-references, and the index or concordance.

Each editor does notes as he sees it.

The original 1611 does mention "the Church"
I have several reference Bibles that have no heading to Isaiah 52.

Scofield: "Vision of Jerusalem in the kingdom-age"

LaHaye: "Zion Will Escape"

Ruckman: "Prophecies on the Church Age and Second Advent"



Again, Logos666 spends his time trying to destroy faith in the word of God. He's not alone. I have a stack of books whose authors feel it is their duty to attack and destroy any and all who hold the KJV as the Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Again, Logos666 spends his time trying to destroy faith in the word of God.
Your incorrect allegation would demonstrate that you choose unwisely to disobey the Scriptures as you bear false witness and as you make an unrighteous judgment.

Do you perhaps attempt to take the role of God as you seem to suggest that you are supposedly able to read my mind and know my intentions?

My advocating clear scriptural truths is not any attempt to destroy faith in the word of God as you incorrectly allege. My efforts as a Bible-believer to speak the truth and to prove all things do not destroy faith in the word of God.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Each editor does notes as he sees it.

The original 1611 does mention "the Church"
I have several reference Bibles that have no heading to Isaiah 52.
Do you demonstrate how that many KJV-only advocates may be uninformed and sometimes misinformed about editions of the KJV?
Perhaps ignoring or avoiding the first three hundred years of KJV editions, many KJV-only advocates may jump to their opinions about editions of the KJV based on post-1900 KJV editions. From all the many editions during the first three hundred years of its existence, a few of them may have seen only a 1611 reprint edition.

Because a claim may be generally accurate concerning post-1900 KJV editions does not mean that it would be accurate and true concerning all pre-1900 KJV editions.

It is not only the original 1611 edition of the KJV that has the chapter headings made by the KJV translators. I have not examined all editions of the KJV printed in London, at Cambridge, and at Oxford during the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's, but I have likely examined over 200 KJV editions printed during those years. Based on actual examination of many KJV editions printed in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's, I can observe that those KJV editions printed in London, at Cambridge, and at Oxford during those years commonly or typically still have the same chapter headings as found in the 1611 edition. Benjamin Blayney in his 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV did make a few changes to the 1611 chapter headings.

Benjamin Blayney noted that “considerable alterations have been made in the Heads or Contents prefixed to the Chapters” in his 1769 Oxford edition (Scrivener, Authorized Edition, p. 239), and Scrivener maintained that in many cases Blayney gave “a better account of the real contents of the chapters than the old” [1611] did (p. 133). Scrivener asserted that later Oxford editions returned to the headings of the 1611 edition and that Cambridge editions never adopted the changes made by Blayney (p. 133).

The American Bible Society in the mid-1800's also made some changes to the chapter headings from the 1611 edition in their ABS editions.
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
@logos1560 I understand you like talking about the KJV issue, but this thread had nothing to do with it.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I understand you like talking about the KJV issue, but this thread had nothing to do with it.
This thread concerned the history of replacement theology so perhaps you seek to avoid that it was taught in the chapter headings in many editions of the KJV beginning with the 1611 for well over 100 years. You try to tie replacement theology to Luther, but you avoid its ties to the Church of England and its third authorized version--the KJV. Perhaps your selective history is incomplete and misleading.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
you avoid its ties to the Church of England and its third authorized version--the KJV. Perhaps your selective history is incomplete and misleading.
You do realize 1611 falls directly in the center of the Reformation Period, do you not.

I've said it before. It doesn't matter what the popular, contemporary doctrine of the time among the translators was (they certainly didn't hold to any paganism, transgenderism, or New Age mysticism like many affiliated with the translating boards of the New Versions),

The main issue at hand is: did they perform the assigned task accurately by comparison to the NV's. Your argument is a red herring. And anyway, it falls flat because the NV's actually did render more wordings in support of Replacement Theology, while the KJV translators did not. Therefore even if some, not all, of the KJV translators held a similar view, it didn't make it into the translation itself (not red herring with subjective headings). This proves their personal beliefs were kept separate from their methods of translation. Unfortunately the New Versions cannot make the same claim.

Perhaps you need a scale by which to weigh your arguments. Obsessively attacking the KJV while ignoring all of the undeniable facts surrounding the NV's is what's truly selective and misleading.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Perhaps you need a scale by which to weigh your arguments. Obsessively attacking the KJV while ignoring all of the undeniable facts surrounding the NV's is what's truly selective and misleading.
You do not practice what you preach since you fail to weigh soundly your own faulty arguments. You also continue to make false accusations. It has already been soundly pointed out that disagreeing with and exposing erroneous human KJV-only reasoning is not attacking the KJV as you try to allege incorrectly. I read the KJV and accept the KJV as what it actually is. I present the truth concerning the KJV.

You fail to prove that I deny any actual "undeniable facts". Over and over you merely allege, but you do not prove. I accept the actual verifiable facts while KJV-only advocates do deny actual facts concerning the KJV. KJV-only advocates try to claim that their unproven premises and unproven claims are facts when they are not. You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly as you continue to jump to wrong conclusions based on your selective, misleading, unjust, unproven allegations.

My point presenting the truth concerning KJV editions was not a red herring as you incorrectly allege. Perhaps you are too proud too admit that your so-called history was incomplete and selective.

Perhaps the Church of England makers of the KJV could be said to have provided support for their Old Testament chapter headings with their rendering "church" in the wilderness at Acts 7:38. The 1560 Geneva Bible had the rendering "congregation" at Acts 7:38 instead of "church."
Bible-believers have soundly pointed out some examples of Church of England episcopal bias in the renderings in the KJV.
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
@logos1560 Look, no offense but I can't talk about these topics with you further because you keep backing away from addressing points in a specific manner and start making wildly generalized claims.

I think you must have cried wolf by shouting "erroneous KJV-O human reasoning" 100 times now. Literally. No one is going to give any weight to this until you get specific and address the opponent's specific points.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I think you must have cried wolf by shouting "erroneous KJV-O human reasoning" 100 times now. Literally. No one is going to give any weight to this until you get specific and address the opponent's specific points.
You do not practice what you preach as you have not addressed nor answered my specific scripturally-based points nor the verifiable facts that I have presented. Are you in effect saying that no one should give your unsound attempts to defend KJV-only teaching any weight? In contrast to the wisdom from God above, human KJV-only reasoning shows partiality to one exclusive group of biased Church of England critics in 1611. In contrast to the scriptural instruction to use just measures, KJV-only reasoning uses unjust divers measures/standards--applying different measures to the KJV than are applied to other English Bible translations. In contradiction to the scriptural truth that states that the word of God is not bound, KJV-only reasoning in effect tries to bind the word of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You make wildly generalized claims/allegations that you have not proven to be true, and you try incorrectly to call them "undeniable facts".

Actual specific examples of erroneous KJV-only reasoning has been presented. Specific examples of the KJV-only use of fallacies have been presented. KJV-only reasoning assumes unproven premises by use of the fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. KJV-only reasoning also makes use of the fallacy of false dilemma as KJV-only advocates attempt to suggest that the KJV is the only alternative to their unsound over-generalizations and unjust allegations against modern English Bibles. My writings have provided all the documentation and specifics for my accurate observations concerning erroneous KJV-only reasoning. My writings provide specific quotations from KJV-only authors in the over 150 KJV-only books that I have read.

You have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

In one post, another poster directly quoted some of your claims and demonstrated your use of fallacies, and you did not address his points, which demonstrates again that you do not practice what you preach.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I've said it before. It doesn't matter what the popular, contemporary doctrine of the time among the translators was (they certainly didn't hold to any paganism, transgenderism, or New Age mysticism like many affiliated with the translating boards of the New Versions),
You make overly-broad, over-generalized accusations against all New Versions and their translators, which you do not prove to be true. Where are the actual documented specifics for your broad-sweeping smear?

You have presented no specific, clear standards and measures for doctrinal soundness for Bible translators that you demonstrate that you apply justly.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Projecting
You need to look in a mirror.
You are guilty of what you inconsistently and unjustly accuse others.
Perhaps you merely project your own broad-sweeping generalizations on to others.

You fail to prove that I project anything upon KJV-only advocates which I cannot document from their own words or upon KJV-only reasoning which is not true.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
And you need to look at the title of a thread before you start spamming off topic under it.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
And you need to look at the title of a thread before you start spamming off topic under it.
My first post in this thread directly related to the subject of this thread--replacement theology.
My other posts have directly responded to what you have posted in this thread so evidently you were spamming off topic. You are guilty of what you accuse others. Your use of double standards is evident.

You do not practice what you preach since you went off topic in the thread I started about a book written in response to KJV-only views.
 
Top