Featured HAS GOD'S WORD BEEN PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES?

You fail to prove your opinion to be true. There is plenty of sound documented evidence that the 1582 Rheims New Testament was used in the making of the KJV. One of the KJV translators themselves admitted it.

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, Ward 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). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

 

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).

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule wrote: “This Rheims New Testament exerted a very considerable influence on the version of 1611, transmitting to it not only an extensive vocabulary, but also numerous distinctive phrases and turns of expression” (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions, p. 96). Darlow and Moule noted that “the Rheims New Testament, though not mentioned, contributed appreciably to the changes introduced” (p. 134).

David 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). David Norton asserted that “Rheims’s prime contribution to the KJB was an added sprinkle of latinate vocabulary in the NT” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32).
John R. Kohlenberger III observed: “Although Bancroft did not list the Catholic Rheims (1582) translation of the New Testament as a resource to be used, and although Miles Smith does not cite it by name, the translators occasionally followed its readings” (Burke, Translation That Openeth the Window, p. 47).

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).

Charles 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 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.

 

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV obtain their Latin-based rendering "malefactors" at Luke 23:32 and Luke 23:39 or did they use the 1582 Rheims and get it from it?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "courtesy" at Acts 24:4 or did they borrow it from the 1582 Rheims?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "seduce" at Mark 13:22?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep the rendering "austere" at Luke 19:22?

Was the 1582 Rheims the source of the KJV's rendering "malignity" at Romans 1:29?

At 2 Corinthians 1:12, do those six English translations have "pureness" or does one of them have "sincerity" as in the 1582 Rheims and 1611 KJV?

 

The Kjv also at times pulled from Erasmus some renderings he took in from the latin Vulgate, correct? And that is an official catholic translation!

 

While you guys are free to differ with John Henry's interpretation of the evidence -- as do I -- your statements reply to something different than what he is asserting, which is the six translations mentioned in the instructions to the translators.

This is purely pasting on top of the KJV something it does not say at all. The correct answer to the KJV being purified seven times is easily found within the KJV itself:

God's words always were, now are, and always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 in the KJV does not say that the English Bible will be "purified seven times." The words are pure, currently, at the time David is writing, not just waiting for some future refinement. The words already exist in purity in David's generation and will be preserved to and through future generations. If pure and preserved, why do they need this "seven-time refining"? "The words of the LORD are pure words: as..." "As" signals a figure of speech, a simile that compares the purity of the Lord's word to the purity of silver put through the refining furnace seven times (Cf. Zechariah 13:9). As no dross is in the seven-time refined silver, so there is no admixture -- nothing impure, nothing false -- in the pure words of the Lord.

As noted by Reynolds on the first page, the refining does not refer to God's Word -- which needs no refining -- it refers to silver.

 

A number of things commend the KJV. You don't have to make stuff up.

 

He is claiming that no more than six prior English Bibles were used in the making of the 1611 KJV, and that is not factually true. We did not claim that there were more than six English Bibles listed in the instructions.

The rule for the making of the KJV did not point out that there were actually two different Geneva Bibles [the 1560 Geneva Bible and a later one (often identified as the 1599) with a different New Testament edited by Laurence Tomson, and the makers of the KJV likely made use of both of these two different English Bibles.

The evidence is clear that the makers of the KJV also made use of the 1582 Rheims New Testament even if it was not listed in the instructions and even though John Henry claimed that they did not.

 

On reviewing what John Henry wrote, I agree with you. He doesn't just say that is where he arrives at the number seven, but says that only those 6 were used for reference in translating the KJV.

 

The statement of refining though only applies to the Originals anyways, and not any Bible translation....

 

Sorry, I don't buy this (and I teach church history at a Bible college). Unfortunately, I'm away from home and my resources. But I'll just say to you what I say to my students: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! Example: the so-called "TR Japanese" version on that website is in classical Japanese, so it's probably not a new version, but apparently someone is just typing in a previous version (probably the Nagai translation).

And again, how do you know the "seven times purified" refers to the English Bible? Why can it not refer to the Japanese Bibles I listed (or Spanish, or Chinese, or..., or..., etc. etc.)?

 

KJV-only advocates often make incorrect or misleading claims about Waldensian Bibles.

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).

 

...and 2 Geneva Bibles

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

True, but it can also mean 'Sheep-dipping.'
I have done a lot of research into pre-Reformation Christians, and I would love to say that there is solid, verifiable evidence of credo-Baptists in Britain before 1500, but I have not been able to find any.

It's just a shame he never mentions baptism, isn't it? I think it's entirely possible that Tyndale was converted under Lollards, but to claim him as a Baptist is a total stretch.