KJVO vs Latin Vulgate Onlyism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DrJamesAch, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJB Only versus Latin Vulgate Only Argument

    One common complaint I hear all the time from the unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible and KJVO critics (they do not know [a = not + gnostic = to know] where to find an infallible Bible) and mentioned by Mr. Rick Norris in his book, the Unbound Scriptures, is that we who believe there is only one Bible that is the pure, complete, and infallible word of God is that this is similar to the Catholic view concerning the Latin Vulgate.

    The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 in an effort to rally the forces of the Catholic church to combat what they considered the heresies of the Reformation and their Bibles.

    The Catholic church decided that the Latin Vulgate should be their official bible and none other allowed. Problem was, even when they made this decree, there was no settled text or single Latin Vulgate considered authoritative. Their own language reveals this. Here is a quote taken from the Council of Trent's own decree issued in 1556 "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, IF IT BE MADE KNOWN WHICH OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." (end of quote)

    A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120).

    There are several fundamental differences and similarities to what the Catholic church tried to do with the Latin Vulgate, and the Bible version issue as it stands today.

    The Differences:

    First - the Catholic church wanted to place the words of God in a DEAD LANGUAGE which most people could not read and they forbade translations into other languages to be made. Thus they were keeping the words of God out of the hands of the common people and making them dependent on a special class of priests to interpret it for them.

    Second - This official bible had no settled text at the time the decrees were made. There were several competing Latin Vulgate bibles circulating at the time and one was not settled upon till 36 years later.

    Third - This official bible was produced by an apostate church which denied salvation by faith alone in the finished work of Christ; denied salvation outside of this Catholic church system, and established a special group of priests who alone could interpret the Scriptures for us.

    The King James Bible believer does not deny salvation to anyone who happens to read any Bible version other than the KJB. We approve of the translation of Scripture into other languages, desiring only that they attempt to follow the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, and the meaning as found in the King James Bible, as best as possible and not omit some 3000 to 4000 words, including 17 to 45 whole verses, from the New Testament as do versions such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV. All these modern versions just mentioned also depart frequently from the Hebrew texts that underlie our King James Bible.

    The Similarities:

    First - the modern versionist has no settled text, just as the Council of Trent did not when they made their decree. The Greek text that underlies the modern versions such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, etc. is in a continual state of flux and constant change. Every new version changes the actual TEXT, as well as the meanings of other verses, from the previous versions.

    Second - The modern versionist would likewise place the Final Authority in the hands of a special group of religious leaders - the scholars. They affirm that no translation is the inspired words of God and that we must "go to the original Hebrew and Greek texts" (which don't even exist). Thus they remove the common people from the words of God by appealing to DEAD LANGUAGES as their final authority.

    However, it is painfully obvious that these same scholars cannot agree among themselves WHICH Hebrew and WHICH Greek texts are authentic. This is similar to the case of the conflicting Latin Vulgate versions that were circulating at the time of the decree of the Council of Trent in 1556.

    Third - The ever changing Greek text now used to translate most modern versions is compiled by men who themselves are apostates who believe no Bible is inspired and much of what we do have is "ancient folktale, popular legend, and traditions penned by unknown authors". (See Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini, and the other liberal editors of the UBS Greek text.)

    In fact, versions that are based on the ever changing UBS (United Bible Society) Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts are the new Vatican Versions. The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the UBS and is directly involved with them in creating what they themselves call an "interconfessional" text. Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph New American bible and the New Jerusalem bible are ALL based on the same Greek text and they all often reject and add to the same Hebrew readings.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    And yet you are in opposition to a number of Reformation principles.

    Canon five would be in agreement with your beliefs.

    We, as in your coordinating committee? :)

    If the KJV, and not the underlying text is your standard. The additions of the KJV are not as much as 3,000 to 4,000 words. What are your sources?
    What you refer to as the "actual TEXT" you mean the readings of various versions.
    The original languages are appealed to rather than the KJV English version. Things do not originate with the KJV as the Preface and common sense would declare.

    The words of Holy Writ should be in the common language --why do you have a problem with that?

    A quick way of getting you banned is to use the language you employ.

    The NAB,and NJB are both far superior to the KJV and would be profitable for anyone to read. It would lead to the salvation of many and a life of discipleship to the Lord. Of course, I would prefer to have only the 66 canonical books unlike the KJVs which for years carried books aside from the Canon.
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,204
    Likes Received:
    611
    This is one of the silliest and flimsiest premises I've ever encountered in the Bible version debates.
     
    #3 InTheLight, Aug 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2013
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Silly? Flimsy? You expected better? Bwaa-ha-ha :tonofbricks:
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    We would hold that modern versions, and the geneva/Kjv etc are all infallible versions, but NOT perfect, as that would be the inerrant originals!
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In effect, does not a KJV-only theory attempt to establish a special, exclusive group of Church of England priests or scholars who alone could interpret and translate the Scriptures into English for us?
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Don't the KJVO folks present to us Angican theology being read back into at times KJV version, and that they were inspired to so such by God?
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    arguments of the Latin Vulgate-only view

    For many years, especially in the 1500’s and 1600’s, many Roman Catholics defended their Church’s translation of the Bible [the Latin Vulgate] as being inspired and perfect. What reasons or arguments did these Roman Catholics use in defense of their Latin Vulgate-only view?

    Roman Catholics of that period of time argued that the church’s long use of the Latin Vulgate proves it is the correct and best translation. In their preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first reason given for use of the Latin Vulgate was that “it is most ancient” (p. xvii). In their preface to the 1610 Douay Old Testament, it is asserted that “the old Vulgate Latin Edition hath been preferred, and used for most authentic above a thousand and three hundred years” (p. viii). Gregory Martin, one of the Roman Catholic translators of the Rheims New Testament, asked Protestants: “Will you be tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church above a thousand years?” (Fulke, Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 77-78). Again Martin wrote: “In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and the whole church?” (Ibid., p. 84). In his 1688 book, Thomas Ward asserted: “That the Vulgate of the Latin is the most true and authentic copy has been the judgment of God’s Church for above those 1300 years” (Errata, p. vi). Thomas A. Nelson claimed that “the Latin Vulgate Bible was used universally in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) for over 1500 years” (Which Bible, p. 97).

    Another claim of Roman Catholics was that the Latin Vulgate was equal to or even superior to God’s Word in the original languages. The preface of the Rheims N. T. pointed out: “It [the Latin Vulgate] is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree” (p. xvii). That Rheims preface asserted that “we see that by all means the old vulgar Latin translation is approved good, and better than the Greek text itself, and that there is no cause why it should give place to any other text, copies, or readings” (p. xx). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that “the Vatican librarian, Agostino Stevco, furnished extensive arguments in 1529 for the superiority of the Vulgate to both Hebrew and Greek texts” (Vol. I, p. 164). William Whitaker (1547-1595) maintained that “the papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 138). Thus, Roman Catholics set aside the superior or greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to assert and maintain the authority of their preferred translation–the Latin Vulgate.

    It was implied or claimed that the Latin Vulgate-only view was necessary because of differences, errors, or corruptions in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Rheims translator, Martin, asked: “What Greek say we for there be sundry copies” (Fulke, Defence, pp. 84-85). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) pointed out the Catholic view: “The question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of the Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this, we deny it” (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 113-114).

    The Roman Catholics also implied that there must be a perfect translation. Peter Sutor contended: “If in one point the Vulgate were in error, the entire authority of holy Scripture would collapse” (Hills, KJV Defended, p. 187). The preface of the 1582 Rheims argued that the Latin Vulgate was the only authentical Bible. Martin condemned Protestants or Reformers who made the Hebrew and Greek the standard for translations: “They admit only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be the true and authentical text of the scripture” (Fulke, Defence, p. 46). Martin also noted that the Reformers “call the Greek verity and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all translations must be tried” (IBID., p. 43).

    Roman Catholics claimed the Holy Spirit’s endorsement of the Latin Vulgate. Eugene Rice wrote: “It was a further common view of apologists for the Vulgate that a special providence of the Holy Spirit had acted directly on the translator to guarantee his trustworthiness” (Saint Jerome, p. 181). Rice cited that Melanchthon noted that to accept the judgment of the Council of Trent’s 1546 decree on the Vulgate “we would have to agree that the Vulgate has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit” (p. 186). Theodore Letis cited where Paolo Sarpi, who wrote a history of the Council of Trent, noted that “some at Trent, put forth the same argument as Augustine, claiming that ‘the same Holy Ghost, who did dictate the holy books, hath dictated also that translation, which ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome” (Ecclesiastical Text, p. 162). Thomas A. Nelson asserted that “we need to defer to St. Jerome and to trust in God’s providence that the Greek text he translated was correct and that he translated it correctly” (Which Bible, p. 57). In the preface of the Douay, Roman Catholics contended that the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts when “they were more pure” (p. viii). In the preface of volume one of A Literal Translation of the Prophets, Robert Lowth noted that “many contended, that the Vulgate version was dictated by the Holy Spirit; at least was providentially guarded against all error; was consequently of divine authority, and more to be regarded than even the original Hebrew and Greek texts” (p. xxxix).

    In addition, Roman Catholics suggested that their Latin Vulgate-only view was necessary because of the differences and supposed corruptions in other translations. The preface of the Rheims claimed that their translation was needed because of the “false translations” by Protestants who were accused of having corrupted God’s Word by “adding, detracting, altering, transposing, pointing, and all other guileful means; especially where it serveth for the advantage of their private opinions” (p. xiv). In the preface of the Douay Old Testament, the Roman Catholic translators asserted that “we can not but complain, and challenge English Protestants, for corrupting the text, contrary to the Hebrew and Greek, which they profess to translate, for the more show, and maintaining of their peculiar opinions against Catholics” (p. x). Martin attacked the Protestant Bible translators claiming that “a blind man may see you frame your translations to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following sincerely either the Greek or the Latin” (Fulke, Defence, p. 177). Martin claimed to have uncovered the Protestants’ “corrupt translations for defacing of the church’s name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood” (Fulke, Defence, p. 278).

    Roman Catholics even claimed that other translations are so corrupt that they are Satan’s bibles. Martin condemned “books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being no indeed God’s book, word, or scripture, but the devil’s word” (Fulke, Defence, p. 228). Sir Thomas More contended that Tyndale’s N. T. was a “cunning counterfeit,” perverted in the interests of heresy; “that it was not worthy to be called Christ’s testament, but either Tyndale’s own testament or the testament of his master Antichrist” (Bruce, History of the Bible, p. 40).

    In their preface to their 1582 N. T., it is claimed that the Latin Vulgate of Jerome “is the gravest, sincerest, of greatest majesty, least partiality, as being without all respect of controversies and contentions” (p. xvii). William Whitaker maintained that Roman Catholic divines asserted that the Latin Vulgate is “the weighiest, purest, most venerable and impartial” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 144).

    Are these claims concerning the Latin Vulgate-only view correct and scriptural? The early English translators including the KJV translators clearly rejected these Roman Catholic claims and arguments as incorrect and unscriptural. Surprisingly, KJV-only advocates seem to have revived a form of these same warmed-over Roman Catholic claims as “irrefutable” proof for another incorrect one-perfect-translation-only view–the KJV-only view.
     
  9. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    When KJVO post things like this, it just proves the fact that KJVO teachings are an inch deep and a mile wide.

    If you love the KJV and use it - wonderful! I fully support your right to use it and teach from it. But promote the "Only" doctrine? No, sorry. You get no support for that from my quarter.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did you provide any sound evidence for your opinion?

    Does a KJV-only theory in effect place the Final Authority in the hands of a special, exclusive group of religious leaders--the Church of England textual critics and translators who produced the KJV from varying textual sources and by revising earlier English Bibles?
     
  11. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.



    If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

    In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

    There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

    The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, "Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church." - Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

    Here is the United Bible Societies own website where they announced in March of 2013 the news of the new Pope Francis' longtime support of the UBS.

    http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/news/3575-united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/

    United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis
    MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.

    On October 11th of 1962, the first session of the Vatican Council II meet in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Over the next few years, they plotted out the future of the Roman Catholic Church.
     
  12. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    On November 18th, 1965, the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" was written. In chapter 6, on page 112, we read:

    "But since the word of God must be readily available at all times, the church, with motherly concern, sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into various languages, especially from the orginal texts of the sacred books. If, when the opportunity presents itself and the authority of the church agree, these translations are made jointly with churches separated from us, they can then be used by all Christians."

    This is all the plan and design of the Jesuits to destroy the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" and to bring the whole would back under the control of the Pope! For many direct quotes from Occultists, Spiritualists and Satanists who openly and harshly criticized the King James Bible and who promoted the Revised Version put out by Westcott and Hort to undermine and destroy faith in the King James Bible as the infallible words of God in the English language, see this site here. You will be amazed.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/bria...?comment_id=6422380&offset=0&total_comments=9



    Bible critics (none of whom believes that any Bible in any language IS the complete, inspired and 100% historically true words of God) often attack King James Bible believers for using a Bible with "Roman Catholic" roots. For example Doug Kutilek's article “Is the King James Version a Roman Catholic Bible?” Recently I was at a Christian Forum on Facebook and I got more than a couple of remarks like: “Well, we can thank the Catholic church for the King James Bible” or “you wouldn't have the KJV without the RCC. They sponsored Erasmus (RC scholar) who rushed the manuscripts which are the basis for the the KJV.”


    Their argument goes something like this: the Textus Receptus Greek text was edited by Erasmus, the King James New Testament was based upon the Textus Receptus. Erasmus was a loyal Roman Catholic so the King James Bible has strong Catholic roots.

    The Vatican Versionists today - ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman etc. cannot deny the fact that the Vatican is directly involved in creating the "interconfessional" text that underlies all their ever changing versions. Why? Because their own Critical Greek text tells them that this is the case. So, in an effort to bring us to the conclusion that "The KJB is just as Catholic as our new versions", they always drag out this Erasmus thingy and hope to lead us down this erroneous rabbit trail.

    They ignore the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest; he often criticized many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; he died in the presence of his Protestant friends; his books were eventually placed on the forbidden to read list by the RCC and most importantly, no Catholic bible version ever used the Greek text of Erasmus to make up their translations, but ALL Reformation bibles did use Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as their textual basis.

    The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza.

    The modern Vatican Version users (ESV, NIV, NASB etc.) use this flimsy and ultimately meaningless Erasmus-Catholic connection as an excuse to justify their use and promotion of their ever changing bogus bibles that not even they believe are the complete and infallible words of God.

    As usual, the KJB critics’ argument is misinformed, deeply biased and misapplied. Learn more about the man Erasmus and his theology here:

    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/erasmus.html

    Please read the entire article, but briefly some of relevant points that should be noted are: Erasmus published his printed Greek text in 1516. This was prior to the beginning of the Reformation in 1517 when Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg, Germany. There WAS no Reformation or any official Protestants at this time. Aside from a few persecuted minorities like the Waldenses in the remote Alps, the Catholic church was the only game in town. Even Wycliffe and Tyndale were nominal Catholics. He dedicated his Greek text to the Pope, but this was most likely a political move to get his Greek text accepted and it ultimately did not do him any good at all. It was soon said by the Catholics that Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched the chickens. His books and writings were soon banned by the Pope himself. Erasmus examined hundreds of Greek manuscripts from all over Europe. He was familiar with virtually every variant reading we know of today. He was NOT limited in his knowledge of Greek readings by the alleged ten manuscripts he used to put together the New Testament Greek text. His Greek text, along with the minor revisions of Stephanus and Beza became the basis for the New Testament texts of all Reformation Bibles. The King James Bible translators worked primarily with Beza's fifth edition of the Greek Traditional text of 1598. Luther was a Reformer from outside the Catholic church, while Erasmus believed he could reform it from the inside. Erasmus himself wrote against many of the abuses and excesses of the Catholic church and the celibacy of the priests. He rejected the typical Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 establishing the papal primacy and he began to teach baptism by immersion AFTER conversion. There is no record of him ever officiating as a Catholic priest and he died in Switzerland in 1536 surrounded by his Protestant friends.

    What is called the Textus Receptus was NOT the basis for the Catholic Bibles, but rather for the Reformation Bibles like Luther’s German Bible, the French Olivetan, the Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida, the Spanish Reina Valera, the English Geneva Bible and of course the King James Holy Bible. The Catholic church never did approve of the Textus Receptus. In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.


    The King James Bible translators themselves did not even primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus for their magnificent translation, but rather the Greek texts of Stephanus and Theodore Beza, though all three are in basic agreement.

    So, what exactly is the primary basis for such modern bibles as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Daniel Wallace’s NET versions etc? It’s the United Bible Society’s ever changing and evolving “nothing is settled or sure” Greek text based primarily on the VATICANUS manuscript found in the Vatican library, and put out by a joint effort of Evangelicals and the Catholic Church! Hello?... Is any body home? I like to call this ever changing Greek text used by many of today’s “No Bible is inerrant” crowd the Textus Corruptus.

    Do these modern day "Evangelical/Catholic" bibles like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET always follow those so called "oldest and best manuscripts" like Vaticanus? Of course not. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both entirely omit 12 whole verses from Mark 16:9-20 and another 12 entire verses from John 7:53 to John 8:11. Yet they hypocritically cease to use "the oldest and best" in these 24 entire verses and put them in their "bibles" because all these verses ARE found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Latin Vulgate and the Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 - and not even in [brackets]!
     
  13. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    The basis for the modern day Catholic bibles and the textually identical "Catholic" bible versions like the ESV, NIV, NASBs etc. is not even the Latin Vulgate New Testament. Of the 17 entire verses omitted by today's Catholic versions, 9 of the 17 entire verses were found in the Latin Vulgate! You can see one of the Vulgate bible versions (there are several of them) here and check it out for yourself.

    http://www.drbo.org/lvb/

    This particular Latin Vulgate contains Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21 (in verse 20 - their numbering system is a bit different than ours), Matthew 18:11; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44 and 46 (located in Mark 9:45, 47); Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28 and Luke 23:17 are all found in the Latin Vulgate! Even the older Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay of 1950 contained most of the verses that are now omitted by today's "United" Bible Societies ever changing versions.

    You can see the Douay-Rheims Catholic bible here. Compare the verses and see how many of them were IN the previous Catholic bible versions! To me, this is absolutely mind blowing how today's United Bible Society is churning out this new unified bible that differs so much from even the previous Catholic Bibles, all in the name of "Christian unity". Here is the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims bible.

    http://www.drbo.org/

    You can look up the verses and see for yourself in black and white that it contains in its New Testament text the following verses that are entirely omitted by the UBS Evangelical/Catholic Combine that is churning out the now popular ESV, NIV and NASB "bibles". The NASB and Holman Standard [bracket many of these verses, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity]. A real faith builder, isn't it, to have entire sections of the Bible [in brackets]!! The Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950 both contained all of Matthew 12:47; 17:21 (v.20); 18:11; all of 23:14!, Mark 7:16; 9:44 and 9:46 (v.45,47); Mark 11:26; 15:28; Luke 23:17, John 5:4!, Acts 8:37!!; Acts 24:6b through 8a; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24 and even 1 John 5:7 "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."!!! Absolutely Amazing, isn't it? So, who is coming up with this new Evangelical/Catholic Connection bible and why?

    The hundreds of textual differences between the Traditional Text Reformation bibles and the modern UBS Catholic/Evangelical bible versions is that there is a concerted effort between the Catholics and modern apostate Christianity to create "a new bible" that will be accepted by both camps. It doesn't matter to them whether it is the complete, inspired and inerrant Bible or not. Neither the Evangelicals nor the Catholics believe such a thing exists! Their continuing mantra is that "ONLY the originals WERE inspired" and nobody knows for sure what the originals said, so we no longer have an inerrant bible anyway. Apparently what is important to them is that both their "bibles" agree, even though not one of them believes it IS the inerrant words of God nor our final authority. If the Bible is not the inerrant words of God, then the Bible is not our final authority and we will then need to look elsewhere. And where might that final authority be found? the "scholars"? (Evangelicals' modern day "priestcraft"), "the Pope"? or the next world religious leader (the Anti-Christ)? But you can bet it sure won't be their "bible".

    Guess why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It's because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions. Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini. In his book "In the Thick of His Ministry" the Jesuit Cardinal Martini writes: “The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?" (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.) Jesuit Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies' 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions. These are the "bibles" most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic "bibles".

    The United Bible Society has been directly associated with apostate Unitarians, who deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church from the very beginning and even more so today. See 4 pages of documentation that prove this beyond all possible doubt.

    The True Colors of the United Bible Society

    http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46645.htm
    http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46646.htm
    http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46647.htm
    http://prophets-see-all.tripod.com/46648.htm

    King James Bible defender David Cloud writes: “It is also important to note that there is no comparison between the situation with Erasmus and what we find in the field of modern textual criticism and the modern Bible versions today. Erasmus edited the Greek New Testament on his own. He was not doing that work in any official capacity in the Catholic Church nor did he have Rome’s backing but rather was criticized for it and his work was condemned in the strongest terms. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has accepted modern textual criticism and the modern Bible versions with open arms. In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). Most of the translations produced by the United Bible Societies are “interconfessional,” meaning they have Roman Catholic participation and backing.”

    It is interesting to note that the latest United Bible Societies Text, descended from the Westcott and Hort family, boasts, "the new text is a reality, and as the text distributed by the United Bible Societies and by the corresponding office of the Roman Catholic Church it has rapidly become the commonly accepted text for research and study in universities and church." - Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1995), 35.

    This comes from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity site. (PCPCU) Here is their site -
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html
    Here is their own Vatican statement regarding translations - Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
    Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture (Dei Verbum, n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible (1968; new revised edition 1987).



    The St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 says in its Preface: "The translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum) which prescribed that..."with the approval of Church authority, these translations may be produced in cooperation with our separated brethren so that all Christians may be able to use them." From the Vatican, September 18, 1970

    Here in my study I have a copy of the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible translated by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. This Catholic bible version says on page 44 of the Introduction : "In general, Nestle’s-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (25th edition, 1963) was followed. Additional help was derived from The Greek New Testament (editors Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren) produced for the use of translators by the United Bible Societies in 1966.” - The St. Joseph New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Co. New York.
     
  14. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guess which bible versions match the Catholic bibles today. Check out any modern Catholic bible version today like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 or the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and compare the following New Testament verses: Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" (gone), all of verses Matthew17:21 (gone), Matthew 18:11 (gone), Matthew 23:14 (gone), Mark 9:44, 46 (gone); Mark 11:26 (gone), Mark 15:28 (gone), Most of Luke 9:55-56 (gone) Luke 17:36 (gone), Luke 23:17 (gone) John 5:4 (gone), Acts 8:37 (gone), Acts 15:34 (gone), Acts 24:6b - 8a (gone), Acts 28:29 (gone), Romans 16:24 (gone) and 1 John 5:7-8 missing are the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth". Then check your modern versions like the NIV, ESV, RSV, NET, [NASB], [Holman Standard] and the Jehovah Witness version called "The New World Translation". Surprise! What’s missing? Why... it’s the same verses!

    You can buy the NIV at your local Catholic book stores -

    http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/05/catholic-edition-of-niv.html

    The ESV is now published with the Apocryphal books included and you can pick up a copy at the Catholic book stores, but you won't find the King James Bible there. Here is the Catholic site -
    http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html

    Luke 9:54-56 present an interesting case. In the King James Bible we read: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village." All the words I have capitalized in these three verses are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, and are found in many ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian, Harkelian, Georgian, Gothic, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Ethiopian and the Old Latin. They are also in the Modern Greek and the Modern Hebrew bibles as well as Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996, Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991, Luther's German Bible 1545 and 1951 German Schlachter, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1909, 1995 and even the older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and 1899 and the Douay of 1950. You can see the 1582 Catholic Rheims Bible, as well as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer and Geneva bibles for yourself here -

    http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm

    The NASBs reveal their fickle nature in that when it first came out in 1963 they completely omitted all these words from the text, and they did so again in the 1972 and 1973 editions. I have these NASBs right here in my study and all these words are omitted from their texts. Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they put them back in [but in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity. What is happening here is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit all these words, as do the Westcott-Hort and UBS Greek texts and so all these words are now omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the J.W. New World Translation, Daniel Wallace's NET version AND (you guessed it) the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. As a result, these Catholic Connection versions read like the ESV - "...Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them? But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village."

    By the way, ALL of 1 John 5:7 “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one” are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, John Calvin’s translation, the French La Bible de Geneva 1669, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 -"Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um. ", the Italian Diodati 1602, 1649, the New Diodati 1991, the Spanish Reina 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, 1909, 1995, and the NKJV of 1982, plus a multitude of other foreign language Bibles. Believe it or not, but 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the King James Bible and all these others was also the reading of the previous Catholic bibles. It was in the Douay Rheims of 1582 (See the link above), the Douay-Rheims of 1899 and even in the Douay of 1950. It wasn't till the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 that the Catholic bibles began to remove "the three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" from their translations.
     
  15. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it tells us of past historical events, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?

    It is devastating for the modern version promoter to see where the New Jerusalem Catholic bible lands on these verses. Also notice how the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read. It was a whole lot closer to the historical truth than are these more modern translations.

    The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".
    Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)

    whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)

    Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

    or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or 1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" ISV, or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!

    2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."

    or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"

    or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

    or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem)

    or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).


    If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
     
  16. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    For much more documented proof that any Bible based on the UBS (United Bible Society) ever changing Critical Greek Text, now being used by both Catholic and Evangelical bible versions to create an “interconfessional text” such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible see these 7 short videos titled Mother of Corrupt Bible Versions. You will see for yourself how far the Jesuit counter-Reformation has come and how it all ties into today's so called Emergent Church.


    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-19/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-29/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-39/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-49/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-59/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-69/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-79/

    http://www.chroniclewatch.com/corru...t-videos/mother-of-corrupt-bible-versions-89/

    Another Bible - Another Gospel by Robert M. Baker documents the heretical and pro-Roman Catholic beliefs of Westcott and Hort and how the Jesuit counter Reformation has been affecting the modern day Bible translations. A very interesting and informative read. See it here -
    http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/anotherb.html

    Notes from the Internet -


    Nigel writes: 8:41pm Jun 22
    Will, I agree 100% with what you are saying. My only question though is; if I were to read say, the NIV & NASB from cover to cover, where would I be led into the embrace of the RCC? I'm appalled at the RC infiltration into the text of the modern versions, however it would appear that they've done a lousy job in leading folks into the RCC by the use of these versions. I own a couple of Catholic Bibles for research purposes, & even in those the gospel is very clear, & I still wouldn't be led the RCC way (except for the notes that are included in one of their study Bibles).

    9:27pm Jun 22
    Hi Nigel. Good question. What is happening today is that the Vatican is DIRECTLY involved in the textual choices being made to put together the modern "evangelical" bible versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, Holman, etc. The Catholic church does NOT believe in the infallibility nor the ultimate authority of the Bible, and now most "evangelicals" do not either. Doctrine used to be important and the Catholic church doctrine was seen as false and abhorrent.= The sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, confession to a priest, the worship of Mary and the saints, praying to saints, the authority of the Pope, contemplative prayer, mysticism etc.(though some individual Catholics can be true believers in Christ)

    Now, the mindset among post modern evangelicals is that the Catholic church is just as Christian as the evangelicals. See Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Packer and many others. The mindset is that "Hey, both the Catholics and evangelicals use the same bible - the text for the N.T. is virtually identical and even the places where they all "correct the Hebrew" in the Old Testament. The Apocryhpha is OK; it's even in the ESV editions you can buy. Dan Wallace's NET version has it too. The Catholic church is the whore of Babylon and today's evangelical are being sucked right into her and she is welcoming us with open arms and most evangelicals are joining with her in worship, prayers and social outreach. Doctrines are no longer very important, but they have been replaced with "love and unity". That is just part of what is wrong with today's Vatican Versions.

    A Lamp in the Dark - Documentary

    For those who are interested, there is a full length Documentary by Adullum Films called A Lamp in the Dark - The Untold History of the Bible. This is a very well done film of almost 3 hours in length that documents the history of the Bible and how the Jesuit counter Reformation has been at work to bring the professing church back to Rome. Lots of facts and you will learn a lot about what is going on today regarding the Bible version issue and where it is headed. You can see it here -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Osuctvq4QU

    David Cloud Responds to the recent Catholic claim that the Catholic Church contributed to the making of the King James Bible


    This is from David Cloud, April 11, 2011
    http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/friday_church_news_12_14.html

    USA TODAY SAYS CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE KJV

    What the reporter forgot to mention was Rome’s most significant role in that project, which was burning that “Catholic priest” in a public spectacle in Vilvoorde, Belgium. The “priest” in question was William Tyndale, who published the first printed English Bible and the first English Bible translated directly from Greek and Hebrew. Though he was an ordained Catholic priest, he renounced the Roman Catholic Church and its heresies and called the pope the Antichrist. In The Practice of Prelates, Tyndale likened the pope to an ivy which climbs up a tree and gradually saps the strength of the host and kills it, emphasizing that this is what the pope had done to England and every other nation under the papal thumb. Tyndale called Roman Catholicism “a nest for unclean birds.” Tyndale also brazenly disobeyed Rome’s law that forbade the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people without ecclesiastical permission. When the Tyndale New Testament was smuggled into England (because the Roman Catholic authorities there forbade its distribution) large quantities were confiscated and burned, beginning in 1526. By 1528, the prisons were filled with those who had committed the “crime” of reading the New Testament in English, and in 1529 Thomas Hitton became the first in a long line of believers who were burned at the stake for possessing the Tyndale Bible. (Others had previously been burned for possessing the Wycliffe Bible.) In May 1535, Tyndale was arrested for his “heresies” and for his audacity at thumbing his nose at papal laws. After being imprisoned for nearly a year and a half in a cold, dreary dungeon in the castle at Vilvoorde, William Tyndale was taken out to the public square, strangled, and his body burned. Roman Catholic authorities also burned John Rogers, the translator of the Matthew’s Bible, another Bible in the lineage of the 1611 King James. Further, the Geneva Bible, which was the most popular English Bible before the KJV, was produced in Geneva, Switzerland, instead of England for the simple reason that the Roman Catholic Queen Mary was pouring out such vicious persecution upon Bible believers that many fled to Geneva for safety. And going back before Tyndale to the first English Bible, let’s not forget that the Roman Catholic Church condemned John Wycliffe of “heresy” for translating the English Bible and so hated his memory that they dug up his bones and burned them nearly 44 years after his death. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church did have a major role in the English Bibles preceding the King James, and let’s not forget it!
     
  17. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank You Dr Ach....!

    Doc...I don't suspect I'll get many in agreement with me on this but the viewers and posters on this board desperately needed the truth of your last six extensive posts in this thread whether they know it or agree with it.....OR NOT. Thank you for taking the time to go into that in such detail. I, for one, applaud you brother and appreciate your presence here. Thank you for posting the truth about God's Word for all to see.

    Bro.Greg Perry Sr.:thumbsup::saint:
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can smell baloney a mile away. And there's a strong smell coming from this thread.

    If the RCC is attempting to destroy the Bible by corrupting it, they are doing a lousy job.
     
  19. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but I see huge parallels between the Latin Vulgate-only crowd of centuries ago and the KJVO crowd today.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually that poster was not posting the whole truth. He is posting biased, misleading accusations depending upon partial truth and upon fallacies and unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures. Do you show that you know the truth if you think that use of fallacies and faulty reasoning and use of divers measures is posting the truth?

    That poster selectively ignores the truth that there were copying errors and textual differences in the original language manuscripts from which the Textus Receptus was made. For example, the 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus made by Robert Stephanus including over 2,000 textual differences found in just 15 manuscripts and the printed Greek New Testament text of the Complutensian Polyglot. There are textual differences in the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus.

    He selectively ignores the truth that there are similar textual differences in the various Bibles that are placed on the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles.

    That poster failed to make any consistent, sound, scriptural case for a man-made KJV-only theory.

    He seems to be used the fallacy of false dilemma as he avoids the KJV-only burden of proof and tries to smear other English Bibles.
     

Share This Page

Loading...