First Bibles Printed

Yes, yes, and yes.

 

Yes, but not the Apocrypha.

HankD

 

KJVO'ers HAD BETTER answer this one YES, and here's why:

Since Erasmus back-translated the last seven verses of the TR (upon which the KJV is based) from the Vulgate (due to the manuscripts he was using being incomplete), if they were to answer NO to this question, they would be saying that the last seven verses of Revelation in the KJV is not God's word!

(How's that for a KJVO conundrum?)

 

At a minimum it bears a striking resemblance to the Word of God.

 

Yes it was,emphasis on WAS;Is it the word of God now? only the parts that escaped the corrupting hand of Jerome.

Since Vaticanus(most MVs derive from this papal manuscript) did not have Revelation in it,Jerome decided to "use"(pervert) the Old Latin,which contains the book of Revelation.

 

you see Dr. Bob here is my conflict. Eventhough the ORIGINAL text(s) were the work og God, who is to say that people that translated them from hebrew, aramaic, and greek did it totally accurately afterall they were...... human... humans are infalaible. But, if we beleive that then we have to admit the Bible we hold in our hands is incorrect don't we? It's a total Catch -22 situation isn't it ?

 

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

[/QUOTE]Since Vaticanus(most MVs derive from this papal manuscript) did not have Revelation in it,Jerome decided to "use"(pervert) the Old Latin,which contains the book of Revelation. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Hmmmmmm, even if this is correct: at worst, what you're saying is that MV's are "guilty" of the same "deficiency" that the KJV is???????????

That doesn't seem to deflect, but rather it seems to corroborate, my original remark.

It seems to me a rather weak counter-argument to simply say "Yeah, well the same thing is true of the MV's!"

 

Getting back to Dr. Bob's original question though: My answers would be Yes, Yes, & Yes.

 

we can compare their translations (in diff languages) to the extant copies fr the original (in Gk, Heb, Aram), n the no. of those copies is exceedingly gt, estimated at over 5,000 for the NT alone.

so far the level of correspondence among the copies (or MSS) is overwhelmingly high (est. at 92% by KJBO D.A. Waite n more like 98/99% by NT scholars), n the quality of translation generally excellent (barring a couple of hard-to-get-anyway real PERversions identified, e.g. the NWT); therefore, the burden of proof of corruption lies w whomever raises the charge.

the evidence is open n out there for anyone who bothers--in the Library of Congress, British Museums, Manchester Univ, Berlin Museum, Israel Museum, the Muenster Institute, etc.

 

There shouldn't be a conflict. All you have to do is open your Bible and see what God said about this situation.

Ps 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times.
Ps 12:7
Thou shalt keep them,O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(italics mine)

God didn't say that fallible man was going to preserve His words. He said He would preserve His words. No more conflict.

 

Dr. Bob Griffin said:

Could you clarify that "escaped the hand" part. I am confused here.

My observation has been that KJV-onlyists live in a fantasy world where "inerrancy" has nothing to do with the content of the Bible.

When the KJV came around in 1611, whatever was the pure word of God before then just automagically ceased to be so without a stroke of the pen being changed.