1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

More accurate?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Amy.G, Jul 4, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    You will trust Rome as the custodian of Vaticanus and Sinaticus from whence comes bibles you trust?

    Rome Is The Custodian Of The Critical Text.

    There are two copies of those Bibles in existence, A and B. The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And where are they? They are in the custodial care of Rome. Now almost all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, come through that stream. And that necessitates this comment: There is the false and the true streams of manuscripts. And either our manuscripts come through the false stream or the correct one, or the approved stream or manuscripts.

    When people speak of the oldest manuscripts, they usually mean the A and the B. the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. But nobody has seen either one of those for 500 years. They've been under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies that Rome decided to give to the outside world, and I don't trust them one inch. Never, never, never! And I'll tell you why in just a moment.

    None of our scholars today have seen either the A or the B. unless they've seen just a page or two through a glass case. But that's not enough to get the feel of the whole thing, just to see a page that is open at one place. So here we have the stream of manuscripts and the stream of Greek texts coming down through the "custodial care" of Rome. And if it's in the custodial care of Rome, I don't want anything to do with it.
     
  2. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting.

    The Jesuit attack against the reformation launched in the 1530`s is still strong today.


    It is a common tactic today for Jesuits (and Jesuit agents) to use circular reasoning to attack the scriptures. I will examine some particular examples of this in later chapters, but generally here is how the argument goes. The Jesuit (or Jesuit agent) will claim that:

    1. You cannot trust your Bible. The King James Version is tainted by the Latin Vulgate and the Geneva and earlier translations were tainted by Calvinism.


    2. When asked where we might find God’s Word, they will reply that “God’s Word is established in Heaven”.

    3. When asked where we might find the Word of God on earth, they will reply that the Scriptures are inerrant and are the very Word of God and are only available IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.


    4. When asked where we might find the Original Manuscripts, they will say that they are lost and unavailable to us.

    5. When asked again where we might find God’s Word so that we might worship him according to His will – they will tell us to get a good concordance and to seek the wisdom of “experts” in Greek and Hebrew.

    In the end we are exhorted to seek guidance from the “Church” and from priests and pastors who alone are able to properly divide the scriptures for us.
    It is not unimportant that there have been Jesuit priests and coadjutors on the translation teams of virtually every “new” Bible version, particularly the New International Version (NIV).

    The Jesuits quickly realized that making martyrs of people always fans the flames of resistance, although they will eventually return to this tactic, their primary goal is to infiltrate and change Protestantism, redefining it so as to take away and obscure the Grace message.

    THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545

    In 1545, the Council of Trent was convened by Pope Paul III. In this Council, the Catholic Church adopted a stance on Justification that was blatantly contrary to the scriptures. In Canon 9 of the Council, the church declared,


    If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

    In the declaration of the Council of Trent, the Mark of Cain (co-operative sacrifice) was codified by the largest “Christian” entity in the world. The last day’s great deception was beginning to take shape.

    During the closing hours of the Council, the Jesuits were ordered by the Pope to make war, both silently and openly against the Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was born.

    Jesuit spies and agents slowly began to infiltrate Protestant schools and Seminaries. In order to defend the Romanist religion, as well as the Pope (who Catholics are taught is actually “Christ on earth”), the Jesuits began their war plan for a battle on many fronts, but a full attack on the Doctrines of Grace would be necessary if Rome was to ever prevail.

    In 1560, unknown to the Jesuits, one of their greatest warriors was born in Holland. His name was James Harmenszoon, but he would come to be known as Jacobus Arminius.

    Swarms of Locust.
     
  3. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    And you want people to take you seriously? Ed is not a Jesuit spy. A southern baptist but not Jesuit. And did you know paranoia is a sign of Schizophrenia?
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, you are repeating a false statement. "Rome" does not have, nor has it ever had possession of the Codex Sinaictus. The great majority of that Codex is now located in London, with smaller portions located at Leipzig University in Germany, St. Catherine's Monastery, where it was initially 'discovered' by Count Tischendorf, and 3 fragmented sheets located at the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.

    And I don't recall ever saying I trusted 'Rome' with anything, so please dispense with that intended 'shot'.

    In fact, it appears you actually trust Rome far more than I, for you are willing to trust Rome, when readings from the VUL are incorporated into the TR and KJV, over and above that of the majority of the Greek texts, which practice I have never advocated, that I can ever recall.

    FTR, for a text that has allegedly not been seen for over 500 years (and which was only discoverd by the 'West' a little over a century and a half ago, to begin with) you might note that there is a thread open right now, where one can note that it is now found on-line.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=60405

    In addition, although this particular one is a lousy site, IMO, due to the page format, one can see other images of Codex Aleph, on-line, as well.

    And FTR, "A" is not Sinaiticus, but rather is the designation of Codex "Alexandrinus" which is also not under the purveyance of Rome, either, but is also located in the British Library.

    But as I have previously asked, what is a little mis-information and falsehood among friends?? Apparently, not much for some folks! :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We see that you do not object to the KJV translators making use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in their revising of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

    In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to
    create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv). Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139). David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

    The Catholic Rheims New Testament had some influence on the vocabulary of the KJV in that some of its many Latinisms were adopted (Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 267). Daniell wrote: "Another, more serious, push toward Latinity came from the influence on the [KJV] panels of the extremely Latinate Roman Catholic translation from Rheims" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xiii). Charles Butterworth noted: "There are instances where the Rheims New Testament reads differently from all the preceding versions and yet has been followed later by similar readings in the King James Bible, indicating that the translators of 1611 by no means ignored the work that was done in 1582" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 195). Wally Beebe's Bus Workers Edition of the Open Bible noted: "The New Testament part of this [Rheims] Bible was extensively used by the King James revisers" (p. 1221).

    J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). In an introductory article on "The English Bible" in The Interpeter's Bible, Allen Wikgren also noted that the Rheims "exerted a considerable influence upon the King James revision, in which many of its Latinisms were adopted" (Vol. I, p. 93). Herbert May confirmed that "some of its [the Rheims] phrases were used by the King James Version translators" (Our English Bible in the Making, p. 47). In his 1808 answer to the reprinting of Ward’s 1688 book Errata of the Protestant Bible, Edward Ryan referred to the KJV translators “adopting the Romish Version in very many instances” and to their making corrections “agreeably to the popish construction“ (Analysis, pp. 5-6). Benson Bobrick also observed; "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (Wide as the Waters, p. 244). Samuel Fisk also acknowledged that the Rheims had "an influence upon the King James Version" (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV.

    It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'. In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). Even Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536). Instead, she implied that the translators of the KJV avoided “multi-syllable Latin root-words” (p. 535).

    W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). Thus, the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims. Opfell observed that the Westminster company (Romans through Jude) "borrowed many Latinate words" from the Rheims (KJB Translators, p. 97). Even KJV defender Edward Hills acknowledged that the 1582 Douai Version influenced the KJV “slightly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 64). KJV-only author Jack Moorman also admitted that “a few phrases and single words” in the KJV were taken from the Rheims (Forever Settled, p. 188).



     
  6. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait, I'm confused...who is it I'm supposed to hate: Catholics, or Jews?
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I attempt to denote all who have the title of "Dr." equally, without regard to whether the degree is 'earned' or 'honorary' and without regard to the institution granting the degree.

    Thus, while laboring under absolutely no illusions as to either the institution or individual, I address one who has an 'earned' doctorate from, say Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in the same manner as one who has an 'honorary' doctorate from 'Diploma Mill College', for if the institution is authorized to grant the degree by the state regs, that's good enough for me.

    Ed
     
  8. Tater77

    Tater77 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pilgrim, get your manuscript designations straight.

    Aleph - Sinaiticus
    A - Alexandrinus - mixed set of Byzantine Gospels and the rest is Alexandrian.
    B - Vaticonus

    Then your most important P series are:

    P46
    P66
    P72
    P74
    P75
    of course there is P52, the single oldest from the turn of the 1st to 2nd century.

    All of which predate Aleph, A and B.
     
  9. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    I hear the rumor James white the kjv bible critic has a bogus degree pretending to be DR.Maybe he got his idea from C.I.Scofield?

    Smile.

    Steven.
     
  10. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0


    The Jesuits are crafty indeed.

    In Jesus.

    Steven.
     
  11. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    I happen to have an ebook with the facts.I will be happy to email you the book free of charge if your up to the facts.

    God bless you to.

    Steven.
     
  12. Tater77

    Tater77 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oxford English Dictionary


    Jesuit

    /jezyooit/

    • noun a member of the society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic order of priests founded by St Ignatius Loyola and others in 1534.
     
  13. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ok, Bro. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I will remain "EDRO"*, though.

    (*Earned Doctorates Recognized Only)

    :smilewinkgrin:
     
  14. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Another lie which can be quickly proven by going to the Alpha-Omega Ministries info page on DR. James White-

    Education
    B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
    M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
    Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
    Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
    D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002
     
  15. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0

    Scroll down for a bit of information.Take it up with him.

    http://www.jimmyakin.org/noncatholic_apologists/



    In Jesus God bless.

    Steven.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    No thanks. I prefer to believe the man himself over anyone you might dig up on the WWW. We all know how reliable your sources are. :eek:
     
  17. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    No be weary of those that attack Gods Word KJV English.He could well be a Jesuit pretending to be a Protestant.Christianity is full of them.

    Steven.
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'm more weary of your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is a Jesuit Jewish Catholic pretending to be a Protestant hiding behind a tree dressed like Michael Jackson carrying a NWT.

    Thank God for a sense of humor.
     
  19. pilgrim2009

    pilgrim2009 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get the book.


    In his book FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, former catholic priest Charles Chiniquy had this to say about the Jesuits: "The Jesuits are a military organization, not a religious order. Their chief is the general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power. Power in the most despotic excercise.

    Absolute power, universal power, power to control the World by the volition (will) of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms (dictatorship); and at the same time, the greatest and the most enormous of abuses." (The most monstrous hurt, injury and damage) "The general of the jesuits insists on being master, sovereign over the sovereign. Wherever the jesuits are admitted they will be masters, cost what it may.

    Their society is by nature dictatorial, and therefore it is the irreconcilable enemy of all constituted authority. Every act, every crime, however attrocious, is a meritorious work, if committed for the interest of the society of the jesuits, or by the order of its general. page 174, in the book, FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, by Charles Chiniquy.
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    It's available on the web for free. Chiniquy was not KJVO, and he likely never even used a KJV.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...