- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,045
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The Heresies of the Religion of Calvinism and how Satan has used it to infiltrate the Church
- Thread starter UGC
- Start date
That burden of proof is on you. Provide us with a complete list, leaving not a single one of the translators out, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the overwhelming majority of them were 5-Point Calvinists.
Remember, even Dispensationlists of the Classical era agreed in part with Calvin without espousing his 5-principle system.
That's how heresies work: they mix aspects of the truth with lies, so naturally those aligning themselves with the truth will appear to align in part with the true aspects of that deceptive system.
Rat poison is only a fraction actual poison, but is actually comprised almost entirely of real food. Satan is a subtle genius, he knows not everyone in the church who doesn't know the Bible will go for a system built purely on lies. He twists. He distorts. Half of a verse, sometimes just one word. He allegorizes literal passages and makes literal the figurative ones. He is a liar and the father of them.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 989
- Reaction score
- 472
- Points
- 63
Ugg said, "I know of no Ruckmanite who has demanded we follow the outdated system of John Darby." Good, now I don't have to believe any of that rubbish about "pre-trib Rapture," "ruin of the church," multiple gospels, etc.
Ugg also described Calvinism as "an evil system" and "Satan's designed system." All of the KJV translators were Anglicans or Presbyterians, and by definition and confessional conviction, they were all Calvinists (and presumably simpletons and followers of "Satan's designed system)." Imagine that, the KJV translators, the greatest scholars of all time, were all taken in by "Satan's designed system." So why should we insist that their version is "the Final Authority" for all time in the English language?
Ugg says not all the KJV translators were Calvinists. It would be interesting to see some evidence of that. And if there were some non-Calvinists on the translation committee, in what ways did they successfully counteract the baleful influence of the Calvinist simpletons on the committee?
Ugg also described Calvinism as "an evil system" and "Satan's designed system." All of the KJV translators were Anglicans or Presbyterians, and by definition and confessional conviction, they were all Calvinists (and presumably simpletons and followers of "Satan's designed system)." Imagine that, the KJV translators, the greatest scholars of all time, were all taken in by "Satan's designed system." So why should we insist that their version is "the Final Authority" for all time in the English language?
Ugg says not all the KJV translators were Calvinists. It would be interesting to see some evidence of that. And if there were some non-Calvinists on the translation committee, in what ways did they successfully counteract the baleful influence of the Calvinist simpletons on the committee?
This is without a doubt the stupidest post I've ever seen on this entire forum.
"John 3:16 is dumb" -Ransom
Hey look! Is that Ransom or Logos666 in this video? I can't tell:
Better get rid of that pesky John 3:16. It doesn't match the sacred TULIP.
And we all know TULIP corrects the Bible, since I mean, one or two KJV translators were Calvinist (I think).
Wait was it the translators' job to translate or to be theologians? Aren't those 2 different job positions? Doesn't matter. TULIP forever.
Hey look! Is that Ransom or Logos666 in this video? I can't tell:
Better get rid of that pesky John 3:16. It doesn't match the sacred TULIP.
And we all know TULIP corrects the Bible, since I mean, one or two KJV translators were Calvinist (I think).
Wait was it the translators' job to translate or to be theologians? Aren't those 2 different job positions? Doesn't matter. TULIP forever.
How about John Calvin's successor and a man who printed John Calvin's literature being involved in the underlying Received Text that the KJV is based on? Is that Calvinist enough?
The Reformer, Theodore Beza, was even more influential than Stephanus. Scrivener in his Parallel New Testament-Greek and English, demonstrates that the King James Version translators primarily used Theodore Beza's 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament. He indicates that out of the thousands and thousands of words in the New Testament, they deviated from Beza only about one hundred and ninety times. Moreover, they not only used his Greek text but relied heavily upon his Latin translation of it. Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence upon our King James Version.
From
The King James Version Of The Bible
Rev. Steven Houck
Original comment:
Notice the amateur response that did precisely the opposite:
Notice the amateur response that did precisely the opposite:
Here's a couple more for ya. Enough or you still want more?
Although some of the translators were more or less Arminian, many of them were Calvinists. One authority tells us that Calvinistic doctrine was the prevailing doctrine of the day. Lawrence Chaderton was one of the strong Calvinists among the translators. At his conversion from the Roman Church to Calvinism his father had written him, Son Lawrence, if you will renounce the new sect which you have joined, you may expect all the happiness which the care of an indulgent father can assure you; otherwise, I enclose a shilling to buy a wallet. Go and beg. This was no idle threat. His father was a very wealthy man. Without his aid life would be very difficult for the young Chaderton. But he refused to give up his Calvinism and became an outspoken anti-Arminian preacher. Thomas Holland, a thorough Calvinist, is said to have opposed Rome with more force than any other. Whenever he went on a journey his farewell to his fellows at the College was this: I commend you to the love of God, and to the hatred of popery and superstition.
Is that why the King James Version is the least Calvinist version compared to all the New Versions?
"Initially making a name for himself editing the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Scrivener edited several editions of the New Testament and collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus."
You do realize Scrivener was a sell-out and a deceiver going along with the now proven lying agenda of the English New Testament Revision Committee as a member himself.
And aren't you the same guy who also quoted Origen of Universalist Alexandria in defense of your wild positions?
"they deviated from Beza only about one hundred and ninety times" Only an amateur or a liar claims 190 deviations is insignificant. This proves they didn't hold him or his work in higher regard than any of the other sources they were comparing it to.
You do realize that since that failed English New Testament Revision Committee and their sell-out Scrivener (who collated Sinaiticus with the TR) corrupted the text, the Nestle-Aland Text (which is the standard agreed upon by all scholars) has recently conceded to the King James side and added 400 readings from the Textus Receptus back into the text, finally admitting the original readings were more accurate than what these doofuses on the Committee for McDonalizing Bibles did to pervert them.
Which is the enemy camp of Calvinism.
Which proves that so long as they weren't New Age Theosophists or "Ecumenical for the Money" like some of the New Versionists are, their personal differences mattered little compared to the task of translating the text accurately, because they were able to get along and work with those of the enemy camp of Calvinism.
But also because the King James Version is not Calvinist in its actual content like many of the New Versions are.
So even if a few of them were Calvinist, it did not make it into the actual text so it doesn't matter.
Look at this guy's tactics. "I think you're losing focus here"
Way to avoid the focused points stated.
Way to avoid the focused points stated.
What in the world
Anyone in there? There is no Calvinism in the King James Bible. Period.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,045
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
“Even the translators of the King James Version itself had rejected popery. They were influenced greatly by the Reformation both on the continent and in England. These men considered Theodore Beza (Calvin's replacement in Geneva) to be the chief authority in religious matters. They relied upon his judgment in matters of exposition as well the Greek text.
Many of the translators were themselves very Calvinistic. Miles Smith, who was a member of the third translation company, one of the revisors of the whole, the final editor with Bishop Bilson, and the author of The Translators To The Readers, was a severe Calvinist. His influence upon the King James Version was great. Besides Smith, Lawrence Chaderton, John Reynolds, Thomas Holland, Daniel Fairclough, George Abbot, John Harmar, and Samuel Ward were all Calvinists. No doubt there were more Calvinist among them, but we know little about many of these translators.”
And this from the article “The Majority of the KJV Translators were Calvinists”
KJV translators were all members of the Church of England. Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from there day is below.
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,045
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Of course, there's no problem for KJV-onliysts believing the Church of England would produce a Bible that contradicted their statement of faith. The Church of England, its authority structure, and the Bible's translators, are all irrelevant. As I said a couple days ago: the KJV came about not as a product of a particular historical and ecclesiastical context, but by magic.
What's funny about his denying it's got Calvinistic leanings is that there are several Calvinist websites urging Calvinists to stick with the KJV because the modern versions lean too Arminian. John Wesley put together his own version of the Bible because he felt the KJV was to Calvinistic. Adam Clarke also felt KJV leaned too Calvinist. Outside of the Ruckman bubble the Calvinist influence doe not seem to be in question. Which leaves UGC with what he considers followers of a satanic doctrine as the translators of the KJV. I said it before, but he gives more justification for abandoning the KJV than he does for accepting it as the only true forever version.
"Not all of the KJV translators were Calvinist, some were Arminian." -tmjbog
"All of the KJV translators were Calvinist." -tmjbog 2 minutes later
"We do everything backwards. We make the Bible say what Calvin wanted it to say. Calvin is our God. God predestined people to go to hell." -People not worth debating
Your primary problem is you idolize men rather than the word of God itself. You waste all your time trying to connect dots to force Calvinism into the Bible when nowhere in the King James Bible is Calvinism present regardless of whatever temporary, contemporary doctrines (plural) were remembered by pop culture to be around at the time.
"All of the KJV translators were Calvinist." -tmjbog 2 minutes later
"We do everything backwards. We make the Bible say what Calvin wanted it to say. Calvin is our God. God predestined people to go to hell." -People not worth debating
Your primary problem is you idolize men rather than the word of God itself. You waste all your time trying to connect dots to force Calvinism into the Bible when nowhere in the King James Bible is Calvinism present regardless of whatever temporary, contemporary doctrines (plural) were remembered by pop culture to be around at the time.