New book for me

Most conservative Christian scholars have weighed the evidence and found the TR to be lacking in credibility compared with the textual basis of most modern versions.

 

You know, you just proved me correct. They looked at the manuscripts and they made a choice. How? Have they seen the originals? Have they talked to the original authors? No. Do they have anything that tells them this one is definately more authentic, more accurate, and more credible than the other? Nope. How then did they arrive and this conclusion? They made a subjective decision. They believe, subjectively, that the evidence points to their conclusion. I believe, subjectively, that it does not. Either way, it is subjective and thus has not been "clearly established".

 

I have a copy of it and have read it.

Cloud wrote that "the defense of the King James Bible pre-dated Benjamin Wilkinson" (p. 13), but he seems to ignore the fact of the important differences between a "defense of the KJV" and the claims of the KJV-only view. Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson may have been the first person to use the two-streams-of-Bibles argument in his 1930 book (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43), and that is one of the arguments repeated by many KJV-only authors. I have not come across anyone that used that argument before Wilkinson.
David Cloud does acknowledge that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13), but he seems to ignore the fact that present KJV-only authors still repeat those incorrect claims about the Waldensian Bibles.

 

In this book, Cloud repeated the inaccurate claims of D. A. Waite that there were "only 421 changes that affect the sound" between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible (p. 136). Both Waite and Cloud have been mailed a copy of research that lists over 2,000 such differences. Waite himself has now admitted that there are over 1,000 such differences, proving that his research was less than 50 % accurate. He has not yet printed a new list of his admitted 1,095 differences so that it can be checked to see which of the 2,000 differences he omits and why.

 

Cloud claimed: "All of the English Bibles from Tyndale to the KJV 1611 (the Cranmer, Coverdale, Matthews, Bishops', Geneva, Great) use the word 'Easter" in Acts 12:4" (p. 158).

That is incorrect. The 1560 Geneva Bible does not use the word "Easter" at Acts 12:4. The Geneva Bible has "passover" at Acts 12:4.

 

So much for "a man who has documented proof and substantiated evidence for his position." :smilewinkgrin:

 

As I said before, Logos, it seems Waite alters his # of changes weekly, while avoiding the publication of an actual list.

 

Yup!

He also musta' kinda' accidentally on purpose , overlooked the RHE NT, of the D-R, as well.

Last time I checked, the RHE was translated by 1582, and the complete D-R was completed a couple of years before the KJ-1611.

And he did not mention the WYC or WYC-P either, which although they do predate the KJ-1611 by well over two centuries, did not either, but rendered this as "pask" following the VUL.

Ed

 

The more yall argue the more I'm convinced.

What is so telling is how the minds of some choose to ignore things and remain set in variance against the ones they have a disagreement with.

Many threads reflect this and it's always the same players who are not innocent of this pattern.

The KJV translators chose what they did according to their ability to reason more than the so-called intellectuals today who so many even deny the Scriptures as God's inspired word.

 

While I'm not exactly sure to whom you are referring, as I was the last to post before you, I wonder if you may have meant me. FTR, I did not argue anything, but merely agreed with one actual fact as to what a version said, and mentioned some other versions that say the same thing, in contrast to an allegation made. Personally, I do not consider it "arguing" to correct an historical or factual inaccuracy.

No disagreement, here.

Still don't particularly disagree.

Now, I will disagree.

While I don't disagree that the KJV translators did a very good job overall, with their efforts, it is a 'sly dig' to place all others in a different category. One who 'denies the Scriptures as God's inspired word' is a far different sort, from one who does believe that Scripture is God's inspired written word.'.

Thus, one who was a translator of the WYC, WYC-P, TYN, MCB, MAT, TAV, GRT, BIS, GEN, D-R, or any other version that predates whatever flavor one chooses of the KJV, and is, in that regard no different than one who is/was a translator of the WES, WEB, YLT, RV, DBY, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, TMB, or any other English version that has followed the KJV, when he or she is one who does believe that the Scriptures are God's inspired written word.

How well one may have reasoned or translated is a debatable point, however, and I would certainly agree that all translators and translations are not created equal.

Again, did the KJV translators do a good job? Overall, absolutely, IMO.

Did the translators of all other 'valid' English versions do a poor job? Overall, absolutely not, IMO.

However, let's don't unfairly equate say, the NWT with the HCSB, to name two versions arbitrarily.

Did the translators of the ____ (Fill in the blank, here.) version do a good job, overall?

I don't necessarily know, until one actually fills in the blank with a version, and that is why we have this forum to begin with, namely to discuss this sort of thing. IMO.

Fair enough??

Ed

 

The parenthesis appears between the quotes so I will assume that it belongs to Cloud, but I think that "Cranmer" and "Great" actually refer to the same version. Why no Taverner's (and others)?

 

What is the 'Waldensian' Bible exactly? Isn't this a synonymous term for the 'Old Latin' (Itala)? And wasn't the Old Latin's Old Testament based upon a Septuagint text (that is Greek, not Hebrew)?

 

Typically KJV-only advocates would claim that "Waldensian Bibles" were translations for the Waldensians made from the Old Latin. The evidence I have seen indicates that those Waldensian translations were made from the edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that was available in their day. That edition may have had some readings from Old Latin Bibles but it was not totally the Old Latin Bible. Yes, the Old Testament of the Old Latin Bible was translated from the Septuagint.

Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

Conjurske observed that the “Codex Teplenis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it” (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 138). Conjurske pointed out that Codex Teplensis included the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodicens” (p. 133). He noted that this manuscript included a list of Scripture portions to be read on certain holy days and saints’ days and at the end included a short treatise on “the seven sacraments” (pp. 133-134). Out of the eighty-two places where the N. T. has “son of man,” Conjurske pointed out that “the Tepl manuscript reads ’son of man’ only seven times, all the rest having ’son of the virgin’” [sun der maid or meid or another spelling variation] (p. 137; also Oct., 1996 issue, p. 240). He affirmed that the “Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, ’sacrament’” at several verses (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16) (p. 139). Conjuske concluded that “it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (pp. 139-140). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”

 

So, the Waldensian "Bible" wasn't a complete Bible but rather it was a New Testament. In addition, their vernacular NT wasn't made from the 'appointed' Old Itala version but rather from the corrupt Vulgate.

Did any Romaunt manuscripts survive into the 16th-century or later? Could they be evaluated as to their correspondence with the Greek TR?

 

I could never trust the following men in translation of the Bible.The KJV Translators were God fearing men who prayed for over 5 hours at a time and trembled and dreaded the translating of the KJV Bible.Where is your evidence that the translators of the modern day bibles were men who trembled and prayed and feared God?

The following is shocking.

Some of the modern translators of today:

Robert Bratcher - Good News Bible - Disbelieved the first three chapters of Genesis.


http://www.av1611.org/kjv/gnb.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible


Edgar Goodspeed - Revised Standard Version - Disbelieved in the deity of Christ and disbelieved the miracles of Christ.


http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-6.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_J._Goodspeed


Martin Woudstra - New International Version - Had oversight of the entire Old Testament - Sodomite


http://www.lovethetruth.com/king_james_bible.htm


J.B. Phillips - New Testament in Modern English and NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Zondervan - Necromancer - Believed that C.S. Lewis appeared to him on his TV set a few days after the death of Lewis.


http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/phillips.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bertram_Phillips



Philip Schaff - 1901 American Standard Version - Chairman - Sought the reuniting of the Protestant Church with Rome, had an audience with Pope Gregory the XVI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff



Carlo Martini - United Bible Societies Greek New Testament - Jesuit Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Martini


http://www.pawcreek.org/articles/endtimes/NIVBibleAndJesuitPriest.htm


Conclusion

The Catholic writers are extolling the fact that Evangelical leaders are willing to work together in the translation of Scripture. One writer said: "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: The Westminster Press, 1979), pp. 232-234.)

The Papel evangelical "Divine afflante Spiritu" in 1943 called for an ecumenical Bible. "[T]hese translations [should] be produced in cooperation with separated brothers." (New American Bible [New York: The World Publishing Co., 1970], p. vii.)

Without a doubt the present NIV and other versions are well on the way toward a "One World Bible" for a "One World Church." It will certainly continue on a downward spiral. The NIV's recent talk over their "inclusive edition" is a good sign of where they are headed.

The Catholic Church {i.e.Jesuits} will infiltrate every possible ministry and undermine the truth wherever they find an open door. Those that compromise will certainly face the William Tyndale's that willingly died at the stake for copying the Holy Scripture. He and the great heroes of the Reformation plus those of us that fight the good fight will be rewarded for our love of a pure Bible untainted by Rome.





Those crafty Jesuits and unholy hands on the Bible.


God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

Lol wut?!?!?!?!?!

 

Just one more Jesuiphobia post.

[Edited to add]

With a little "guilt by association" tossed in for good measure.

Ed

 

It amazes me how ostrichized some on this board can be.

As it was said in a speech back in the late 1970`s the elite are stripping the power of God`s Word out of the lives of Fundamental Churches through these so-called better and easier to read bibles.

I was so pleased to see my elderly Southern Baptist Pastor ordered new hymns and {KJV}pew bibles.Just one SB Country Church in a small circle that refuses to compromise.Amen.

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

2 questions:

1. how many of the KJB's translators prayed for over 5 hours? (while u're checking ... how many hours to Jesus n how many to Mary? it's not hard to ascertain, if one employs the KJBO/SDA use of ellipsis marks, a la the slander on Westcott n Hort)

2. which verse in the Bible says that Bible Translators shd be either God-fearing or prayerful or in dread of their task? verses from the Apocrypha1611 don't count.

question number 2 above is pertinent--is this an Apocryphal standard or a biblical one?

what's shocking is that some of these modern translators, no better than the KJB's original translators or sponsors, through the Providence of God came up with pretty good translations themselves.

kinda reminds us of that Russellite gang from NJ (or their rivals in Utah) who'd much rather work with the KJB than any other. come to think of it, the KJB's also much more popular among the Charismatics/Pentecostalists than any other version. so go figure.

ah, but i doubt the KJBOs will take it lying down. they'll make sure their own one-world KJB come up tops! through lies, if need be.

o that i don't doubt one bit. the Council of Trent n its Vulgate-only agenda still exists n flourishes ... only disguised as KJBOism.