Featured AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible

Hummmmmm!!!

Hummm....methinks there may be a "fly in that ointment"!

Bro.Greg:laugh:

 

Dr. Bob didn't say "Vulgate" and there is more than just Latin Vulgate, there were Greek Vulgates as well from which Latin Vulgates were translated from. Dr. Bob SPECIFICALLY said JEROME and even called him a hero. So either you missed what he said, or like all other KJVO critics, settle for a little compromise and defend the RCC so long as it is against a KJVO.

Jerome's Latin Vulgate was not translated until AD 380. So how could Jerome's Vulgate been the standard when the earlier Vulgates used by the early church predate his translation by 200 years?

 

Yes,Jerome is a hero. Even the so-called Wycliffe Bibles (one wooden translation before his death, and a vernacularf one afterwards) were based on the Vulgate.

And just as there are different species of KJVs there are different kinds of Vulgates.

 

Yes, Jerome was such a "great godly scholar" that the Roman Catholic Church has relied on his corrupt translation to develop their doctrines for centuries now. I guess the Italic Bible of 157 which preceded Jeromes Vulgate doesn't count, nor the scores of other Latin translations prior to Jeromes 380 edition for the POPE.

"If Church historians had looked objectively at Jerome and the Vulgate, ... that their Anglo-Catholic theology is a legitimate 'development' (à la Newman? ..."
www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/ecum/roman/iss_ecum_roman_rootsoferror.asp

"Do not buy just any Bible; every Catholic family ought to have a faithful translation of the VULGATE, the Latin version made by St. Jerome in the fourth ..."
www.facebook.com/pages/Vulgate/116029591778661

"The Old Latin Vulgate must not be confused with Jerome's Vulgate, ... that these early Christians let Jerome's Roman Catholic translation 'sit on the shelf. ... BIBLE PROBLEMS by Gerardus Bouw Answers every question. A classic! ..."
www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/oldlatin.html

"The Catholic Church's Latin Vulgate, based on the Alexandrian family, .... Then Jerome's Latin Vulgate began to be known as the "Old Latin" but so is the ..."
www.bright.net/~bkrajcik/itala157.htm

"He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New ... Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on .... Whether he is discussing problems of scholarship, or reasoning on cases of ..... History of Catholic theology. Theologians · Teachings · Heresies ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

"Vulgate - St Jerome's Bible. ... The version of the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church for over a millennia and a half, ... it was impossible for arguing theologians or interested readers to refer to a standard work. ... translations began to flourish, and it was – fittingly – the first book ever printed. ..."
europeanhistory.about.com/od/religionandthought/p/prvulgate.htm

"In 1430, Lorenzo Valla, a Catholic theologian, begin a critical study of Jerome's Latin Vulgate and Valla pointed out many mistakes that Jerome had made. ..."
learntheology.com/history-of-the-word-repentance.html

"Thus began his career of cultivating ascetic and scholarly interests. ... Jerome was no creative theologian, no great teacher of the church. ... text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). .... holds a very creditable place in the history of Catholic exegesis upon these questions. ..."
mb-soft.com/believe/txn/jerome.htm

"Interlinear Latin Vulgate (New Testament Bible) by St. Jerome Kindle Edition 4.3 .... In what other church outside of the Catholic Church are you able to ..."
www.amazon.com/Interlinear-Latin-Vulgate-Testament-ebook/dp/B001KU791W

"The famous theologian Rufinus, at first his close friend, afterward became .... Now at last Jerome began to enjoy some years of peaceful activity. .... Vulgate the authentic and authoritative Latin text of the Catholic Church, .... 1 This heresy was another effort to settle the persistent problem of the nature of ..."
www.ewtn.com/library/mary/jerome.htm

"Jerome, Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, 4th/5th century; and. Augustine, bishop of Hippo and theologian, author of "Confessions" and "The .... The Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate at this time was the ..."
www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN620NTHISTORY.htm

"1 Jun 2007 ... This now allows us Catholics to admit to the problems that did exist which ... Today, St. Jerome's Vulgate has been revised to meet the ..."
art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

And you avow to be a BAPTIST?????

 

Jerome did a commendable work, considering the scarce resources available to him. Yes, I know there were several "Vulgates" around, and Jerome's came a little later.

It was RCC officials who came after Jerome who made his LV the "standard" for Bibles, and who fought to keep the Scriptures from being translated into any everyday languages of their times. I don't believe Jerome was trying to to help the RCC establish the hegemony they had over the availability of the Scriptures to the common man.

Sure, Jerome wasn't perfect, but who on earth is, or was, besides Jesus? Many of you KJVOs look up to such men as Launcelot Andrewes or George Abbott, who, besides being AV translators, were members of the evil Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber.

 

Perhaps you are misinformed.

Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503-1559), who edited one of the editions of the Textus Receptus that was used in the making of the KJV and who had served as royal printer to French King Francis I (a Roman Catholic), had published several Latin Bibles (1527-28, 1532, 1540) in which "he followed as closely as possible the text of Jerome" (New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 353). Armstrong observed that Stephanus' "primary aim in 1527 was certainly to give the best possible text of St. Jerome's version" (Robert Estienne, p. 75). MacGregor also confirmed that Stephanus “tried to follow Jerome’s text as closely as possible” (Literary History, p. 42). Scrivener noted that Stephanus published an important edition (1538-40) of the Latin Vulgate in which he made use of seventeen manuscripts and that "this edition is practically the foundation of the Modern Vulgate" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 62).

In the texts that head his sermons, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes even used an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as was printed in the 1500's along with an English translation, usually the Geneva Bible. Owen referred to "Andrewes's enthusiasm for the language of the Latin Vulgate" (Ibid., p. 137). Brightman also observed that in his sermons Andrewes "gives precedence to the Vulgate in reciting his text" (Private Devotions, p. xl).

Miles Coverdale was a reformer who produced the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and who edited the 1539 Great Bible [two of the early English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision]. Miles Coverdale also made an English translation of the New Testament of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as found in an edition in his day. In 1538, Miles Coverdale had the text of that Latin New Testament printed along with his English translation of it. I have a photocopy of Coverdale's 1538 Latin-English New Testament.

The Waldensans had translations made from the editions of Jerome's Latin Vulgate available in their day. That edition of the Latin Vulgate had a mixture of a few Old Latin readings but it was still more basically Jerome's Latin Vulgate than the older Old Latin Bible.

Baptist historian 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.

 

^^^^^

Proof that parrots can use computers!:smilewinkgrin:

 

But there WERE, at one time. I TRUST GOD to have given us His word in mss. HE has preserved for us, with their content being according to HIS choices.

Nobody here sez they were. And Logos has pointed out over 2000 differences between various KJV editions.

SO? The four "Gospels" don't match, although they're narrations of the same events. The various mss. were written by different people, same as the "Gospels' were, so they're bound to have been different from each other.

God's words were pure the instant He spoke them. They needed no purification by man! What man would be qualified to correct GOD?

 

ties between Jerome and Erasmus

Is it any more surprising than seeing Baptists defending Erasmus and the Church of England translators of the KJV?

By defending Erasmus, are you in effect defending Jerome?

Eugene Rice maintained that "Erasmus grew up in an environment of devotion to St. Jerome" (Saint Jerome, p. 116). This admiration is clearly evident in Erasmus's book on the Life of Saint Jerome. Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, was the favorite church father of Erasmus (Who's Who in Christian History, p. 235). McGrath affirmed that Jerome was "Erasmus' favourite patristic writer" (Reformation Thought, p. 57). Sowards wrote: "It seems clear, that from beginning to end, Erasmus's personal favorite among the Christian fathers was St. Jerome" (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 139). B. Hall commented: "For Erasmus, Jerome was the ideal of the true theologian" (Dorey, Erasmus, p. 84). Rice cited Erasmus as writing Pope Leo X that Jerome is "chief among the theologians of the Latin world" (Saint Jerome, p. 118). William Woodward noted that "Jerome represented for Erasmus all that was most learned, sober, eloquent in Christian theology" (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 22). Rummel wrote: "In the Annotations Erasmus made comprehensive use of Jerome's writings, citing them for background information, to support emendations, to discuss suitable translations for individual words, and to put them into the proper theological context" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 54). Rice pointed out that when some other writers championed Augustine over Jerome that "Erasmus continued to champion Jerome" (Saint Jerome, p. 137). Spurgeon quoted Erasmus as speaking the following concerning Jerome: "Who but he ever learned by heart the whole Scripture?" (Lectures to My Students, p. 195). David Bentley-Taylor cited Erasmus as saying the following about Jerome: “Who had the whole of Scripture by heart as he had, drinking it in, pondering upon it? Who breathes the spirit of Christ more vividly? Who ever followed him more exactly in his way of life?” (My Dear Erasmus, p. 68).


In his defense of his revision of the Latin New Testament, Erasmus wrote: "As I do not uproot the old version, but by publishing a revision of it make it easier for us not only to possess it in a purer form but to understand it better" (Worth, Bible Translations, p. 63). Rice noted that Erasmus agreed with Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Paul of Middleburg that the Latin Bible in common use in their day had readings that Jerome said he had corrected (Saint Jerome, p. 178). Rolt pointed out that Erasmus wrote Pope Leo X that his design was not "to contradict the vulgar Latin, but to correct the faults that had crept into it" (Lives, p. 39). Boyle confirmed that Erasmus "disclaims any intention to rival the publicly read version of the text" (Erasmus on Language, p. 12). M. A. Screech observed that "Erasmus' starting-point was the Vulgate, and his goal was a scholarly revision of it" (Reeve, Annotations, p. xii). David Daniell noted: "Erasmus's chief aim was to correct the Vulgate; to make a new Latin text from the Greek that would avoid, and correct, the Vulgate's many mistakes" (William Tyndale, p. 60). Do KJV-only advocates agree with Erasmus's view of the Vulgate?


In his long title page, Erasmus did not even mention that the Greek was being published. Erasmus also keyed his Annotations to his own Latin translation. Halkin pointed out that “the Greek text was only joined to it [the Latin text] as a reference text” (Erasmus, p. 105). Daniell observed that in the Novum instrumentum "the Greek is there to explain his Latin" (William Tyndale, p. 60). Rummel observed: "Latin authors are more frequently cited than Greek ones because it is more often the Latin translation than the Greek original that is discussed in Erasmus' notes" (Erasmus' Annotations, p. 50). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that "it is clear that most of Erasmus's effort and the focus of his interest over many years lay in the Annotations" (II, p. 56). William Combs cited Erasmus as saying that the "Greek text has been added so that the reader can convince himself that the Latin translation does not contain any rash innovations, but is solidly based" (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring, 1996, p. 44). George Faludy stated: "The Novum instrumentum is at variance with the Vulgate in some four hundred instances, each of which is elucidated in the annotations" (Erasmus, p. 161). Daniell confirmed: “In all, Erasmus made about four hundred changes to the Vulgate, every one defended in his notes” (Bible in English, p. 117).

 

the Kjv translators did use several different TR right?

Also differing Vulgates?

 

The Wycliffe's Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate has many textual differences with the KJV along with even more translational differences.

Along with its use at Matthew 3:2, this rendering "penance" is also found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.

Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.

Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”

Luther's German Bible has a few textual differences with the KJV and more translational differences.

All the editions of Luther's Bible published during Luther's lifetime did not include 1 John 5:7, Mark 11:26, and Luke 17:36 in addition to many other differences when compared to the KJV. When compared to the KJV, Luther's Bible was also missing phrases at John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, Revelation 18:23, and Revelation 21:26.

Tne English New Testament in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot Bible was an edition of the Geneva Bible.

The 1560 Geneva Bible has at least three or four textual differences with the KJV [one involving a whole verse] and a good number of translational differences.

 

First, you again refer to the false "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", which comes straight outta Dr. Wilkinson's book, which was used as the basis for founding the current KJVO myth. We have shown that Ps. 12:7 is about PEOPLE, as is proven in the AV1611 by its marginal note about the 2nd "them" in that verse.

Second, God's words needed NO purification! They were pure the instant he spoke them. That whole 'purification' theory is just more KJVO horse feathers, phony as a Ford Silverado.

Third, you're attempting to make an "unholy matrimony" in trying to wed the TRUE, Scriptural doctrine of God's preserving His words to the FALSE. non-Scriptural KJVO myth. Dog and cat. Vinegar and baking soda. Ammonia and chlorine bleach. You're pasting feathers on a hippo, hoping that'll enable it to fly.

No Christian here disputes the fact that God has preserved His word. But the KJV is a TRANSLATION of His preserved words, not His preserved words themselves. And so are many other English translations, as well as those in some 2400 other languages and dialects.

And the KJVO myth is just a man-made false doctrine, invented by Satan, as is proven by its cultic and dishonest beginning. It dishonors an excellent Bible version by attempting to exalt it above what it was meant to be-"One More Exact Translation", which it generally is, despite some man-made booboos.

"THE KJVO MYTH IS A POISON MUSHROOM!"

 

You do not understand the truth that your theory is not stated and taught in the Scriptures. You have failed to explain clearly your opinions.

I have read your repeated claims a number of times.

Your posts indicate that you do not learn and accept the truth whenever errors are proven in your claims.

 

I am still trying to figure out why many still stuck to the Geneva Bible even after 1611 perfect came?

 

You'll have to forgive the folks who refused to yield to governmental pressure and stuck with the Geneva Bible instead. It was at least 85.6% perfect!