First Bibles Printed

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In AD 1456, German printer Johann Gutenberg made 200 copies of God's Word. The Latin Vulgate was printed and within 50 years, printed copies of the Vulgate outnumbered all the output of centuries of monkish labor.

    But did he really print a "bible"?

    WAS the Latin Vulgate the "Word of God"?
    IS the Latin Vulgate the "Word of God"?
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, yes, and yes. [​IMG]
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,135
    Likes Received:
    320
    Yes, but not the Apocrypha.

    HankD
     
  4. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?)
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    At a minimum it bears a striking resemblance to the Word of God.
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have sat in the cave (next cave in Bethlehem from the manger area) where Hieronymous translated the Vulgate.

    NONE OF IT "escaped" the hand of Jerome! It WAS ALL done in his hand that gave us that translation of the Word of God.

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

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    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 ?
     
  9. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!"
     
  10. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Getting back to Dr. Bob's original question though: My answers would be Yes, Yes, & Yes.
     
  11. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You can't be serious. There must be a dozen threads in this forum that show you that Psalm 12 does not refer to preserving "words" at all!

    And if it did (which it does not except in the mind of onlies who seem unable to comprehend rules of grammar) when did God do this?

    In 1611? Then what was the "preserved" Word prior to that? It had to be something, right?

    And what about after 1611? What happened to the preserved Word after the AV was translated? Did it get lost?
     

Share This Page

Loading...