What do Alexandria and 1611 England have in common.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 14, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This one ought to cause a few interesting comments.

    Isn't it a little bit odd that the same people who will not accept manuscripts that come out of Alexandria because they feel the country is corrupt turn around and believe in the a perfect word-for-word translation that came from a country with a history of the Catholic Church?

    (one of the same claims as Alexandrian documents being found under the care of Catholics)

    In England Henry the eight started the Anglican church based on Catholic beliefs to divorce his wife. The church maintained most of the beliefs.

    Why would a person reject a manuscript from Alexandria claiming it was an evil city, when England was persecuting and killing Puritans that believed much like the Baptists? They will accept a translation from a country much like Alexandria. Isn't this a double standard?

    NOTE: I am NOT saying there is anything wrong with the King James Version. But the contradiction of those who reject the Alexandrian documents needs to be addressed. This is NOT referring to Textus Receptus preferred. This is referring to level 4 and 5 KJVo according to Dr. Bob's definitions.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    You're giving Ed more help in his dichotomy over the only views.

    If it's Alexandria, it's evil. If it's England, it's good.

    If it's Catholic, it's evil. If it's English Catholic, it's good.

    If it's Sinaiaticus or Vaticanus, it's evil because it could be tainted by Catholics. If it's a blend of who-knows Greek and Latin Vulgate by Catholic Erasmus, it's good.

    Ed, it's too easy . . . :eek: :eek:
     
  3. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV may have been written by Anglicans, but the words come from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. The KJV is a Roman Catholic bible through and through. Remove the false doctrines and you get the Geneva Bible.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The preface of the AV1611 said it was NOT to make a "new" translation, but to better revise the "old" ones.

    Many believe that a reference to the Bishops (Great) Bible. But you are right. There is more direct phrasing from the Catholic English translation than from the Bishops, Geneva or Tyndale.

    And even the inclusion of the Catholic apocryphal books . .
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    According to the rules given the KJV translators,
    the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

    Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs maintained 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).

    Ward Allen claimed 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).
     

Share This Page

Loading...