An attempt to answer the multi-KJV issue

It is not a "revision" of the KJB,but rather the reinstatement of the dark-age Jesuit "bible" of 1582. </font>[/QUOTE]Anti-Alexandrian,

Greetings in the name of the Lord! Thank you for responding to my post! However, you did not answer the question that I asked in my post,

Can anyone on this message board prove that this revision of the KJV is inferior in ANY way to the earlier editions?

I hope that that your comment about the dark-age Jesuit "bible" of 1582 was meant to be a joke, because there was, of course, no such Bible. Indeed, the date of 1582 is very suggestive of a Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate began at the Catholic college at Rheims in 1578 by Gregory Martin and which was published in 1582. When it was published together with the Douay translation of the Old Testament of 1609, the resulting Bible was what we now call the Douay-Rheims Bible. We all know that the ASV and the Douay-Rheims Bible come from very different sources and have nothing in common except that they are both translations of the Bible.

 

Better think again!! The D-R derives from Jeromes Vulgate which came from Rome's pet mss,Vaticanus(minus of course the book of Revelation,which Jerome had to take from the Old Latin,because Vaticanus does not have it).The ASV has the same foundation as the D-R(Matt 7:20).


So you see,when the translators of the ASV claim to have "revised" the KJB they did no such thing;they ditched the Protestant/reformation Bible of 1611 and simply re-instated the Jesuit "bible" of 1582.


P.S.
No,I wasn't "joking."

 

You can't prove that. In fact it's very unlikely because (for one thing) the Vulgate includes 1 John 5:7 which no extant Alexandrian manuscript contains.

Another little know fact: The Douay-Rheims NT text in many passages is word for word the same text of the AV1611. In most other cases there is ony a word or two difference in any given verse, far to much to be a coincidience.

Guess which came first AA?

Yes, that's right, the Douay Rheims.

King James:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.


Douay-Rheims:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.


HankD

 

Sorry, but you information is incorrect. The Vulgate is based on the Western text type, not the Alexandrian text type.

 

Yes!

HankD

 

Better think again!! The D-R derives from Jeromes Vulgate which came from Rome's pet mss,Vaticanus(minus of course the book of Revelation,which Jerome had to take from the Old Latin,because Vaticanus does not have it).The ASV has the same foundation as the D-R(Matt 7:20).


So you see,when the translators of the ASV claim to have "revised" the KJB they did no such thing;they ditched the Protestant/reformation Bible of 1611 and simply re-instated the Jesuit "bible" of 1582.


P.S.
No,I wasn't "joking." </font>[/QUOTE]their you go w/ that scowling face again!

 

skannwmatos
"Some historians insist the "dark ages" ended in the 11th century,"
''
I am one of those historians.
Dark ages if it is used at all ought to be applied to the early medieval period.

 

How do we define "darkness"? How about spiritually mioque?

I mentioned the Roman and Spanish inquisitions.
What about the Waldenses massacres?
The Saint Bartholomew Day massacre?
The castrati?

These qualify for "darkness", no?

While the rulers of darkness have always been with us, I think that the reign of terror of the Church of Rome (post Charlemaigne) was particularly "dark".

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

HankD

 

'How do we define "darkness"? How about spiritually mioque?"
''
We don't, The Dark Ages is a secular term referring to the period of collapse after the fall of the Roman Empire, it's not a religious term.
For one thing the spread of Christianity throughout Europe also takes place during the dark Ages. Still it is discussions such as these that explain why the term has fallen out of favour among historians.

"The castrati?"
''
They were the rockstars of their day, thinking about the antics of their modernday equivalents, castrating those starts to sound oddly sensible.

 

This sentence is very readable although it contains an error. You chose to leave the error, and that is fine. If you chose to correct the error, it would not take away from your first copy. It would not make it any less true; it would simply correct a typographical error. That is what the KJV "revisors" did down through the years. The corrections in the subsequent copies did not lessen the truth of God's words. God's word is perfect according to Psalm 19:7.

 

The doctrine that the KJV, in all of its hundreds of editions and thousands of printing errors, not to mention other errors, is “the perfectly preserved Word of God” is exclusively a human concept and teaching. Therefore, that doctrine belongs to the realm of secular humanism rather than Biblical Christianity, and it should not be taught or defended on a Christian message board.

 

Touche!



HankD

 

To quote a cliche "Don't hold your breath!

HankD