Featured HAS GOD'S WORD BEEN PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES?

JohnHenry, are you suggesting that William Tyndale was more sound in doctrine than the Church of England makers of the KJV?

Does your argument imply or suggest that William Tyndale would be a more trustworthy Bible translator than the more doctrinally unsound Church of England makers of the KJV?

Are you inconsistent in what you suggest since you in effect trust and advocate the changes made to Tyndale's translation by the KJV translators even when they made changes to renderings in Tyndale's that favored congregational church government to make them more favorable to the Church of England's hierarchical episcopal church government views?

Did you skip over one of the characteristic renderings of Tyndale in his New Testament-- "congregation" where the KJV has "church"?

You skip to ignore and avoid the fact that one of the reasons for the KJV's differences with Tyndale's was the renderings that the KJV translators borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims NT.

 

Why did you avoid Tyndale's use of "congregation"?

In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Tyndale had incurred the wrath of the authorities by translating the Latin ecclesia as ’congregation’ rather than ’church’--thereby suggesting a much looser, more democratic and self-governing organization in the early Christian communities of the New Testament than the episcopally organized and hierarchical Anglican Church could tolerate” (p. xxvi). Stephen Prickett asserted: “William Tyndale’s perfectly scholarly translation of the Latin ecclesia as ’congregation’ rather than ’church’ was political dynamite, in that it implicitly handed over the organizational control from the clergy to the rank-and-file in the pew” (Hamilin, KJB after, p. 30). Jon Sweeney maintained that Tyndale’s “translation choices” such as congregation “undermined the longstanding institutional power from the central church (both in England and in Rome), instead empowering local believers” (Verily, Verily, p. 56).

De Hamel suggested that “a Roman Catholic Bible might opt for vocabulary like ’church‘, ’priest’, ’chalice’, and ’charity’” while “a Protestant Bible might translate those same words from the Greek as ’congregation’, ’elder’, ’cup’ and ’love’” (The Book, p.245). David Lawton asserted: “The official Catholic translation, naturally, is ’Church’” (Faith, p. 72).

In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s N. T., David Daniell noted that “what [Sir Thomas] More found heretical in the word ’congregation’ was the implication that there is not one hierarchical body, The Church, of which all churches are members, but rather, self-governing communities of Christians, led by the Spirit, with allegiance only to God through their experience of Christ: precisely the New Testament sense” (p. xxi).

 

You are entirely welcome to follow the Trail of Blood in your church history. But none of this proves a thing about Bible translation in history, which is the subject at hand. The Old Latin translations are completely anonymous. None of the manuscripts have a translator listed. And until the 3rd century, virtually all churches were Biblical, except for Marcion's followers.

There is absolutely no proof that Jerome used "Waldensian" Bibles. The history of Jerome's translation is quite clear, since he himself wrote about it in "Letter to Pammachius" and other documents. His task was to revise the Old Latin versions, but he went so far as to learn Hebrew from a Jewish rabbi, so it is clear that he did a new translation. One can compare the Old Latin to the Vulgate and see this for himself.

As for Origen, I'm not going to debate his influence on the Greek NT. My position is Byzantine priority, and I assume we agree to some degree there. And it does not speak to your theme, "the Bible purified seven times."

But again, don't flee my genuine query: how do you know the "Bible purified 7 times" is English and not Japanese? I'm the lead translator for a Japanese NT from the TR, so it would be quite relevant for me to know this.

 

I see your quote from textus-receptus.com, and raise the bid with another one from the same website:

"Waldensians, Waldenses or Vaudois are names for a Christian movement of the later Middle Ages, descendants of which still exist in various regions. Over time, the denomination joined the Genevan or Reformed branch of Protestantism. About the earlier history of the Waldenses considerable uncertainty exists because of a lack of extant source material. They were persecuted as heretical in the 12th century onwards, endured near annihilation in the 17th century, and were then confronted with organized and generalized discrimination in centuries that followed. There are active congregations in Europe, South America, and North America. The contemporary and historic Waldensian spiritual heritage includes proclaiming the Gospel, serving the marginalized, promoting social justice, fostering inter-religious work, and advocating respect for religious diversity and freedom of conscience. Modern Waldensians are gathered in the Waldensian Evangelical Church." (http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Waldensians)

Now, why is your quote from the website correct but mine is mistaken from the same website? After all, you don't even give the proper source on the website. I can't even find where your quote is from.

 

Then, of course, there are quite a few English versions after the KJV, not to mention the thousands in other languages.

 

Psalm 12:6 is a COMPARISON of God's words to 7-times-purified silver, the purest metal known in David's time. God's words are pure the instant He utters them. They never have & never will need any purifying!

The "7 times purified" thingie is simply a part of the false KJVO myth, and should be disregarded by all Christians.

 

The text of the former can be found HERE, and the latter HERE.

 

I had indicated some places to check on page 2 of this thread.

At Luke 23:32 and 23:29, the six English Bibles listed in the rule have the rendering "evil doers" while the KJV follows the 1582 Rheims' Latin-based rendering "malefactors".

At Acts 24:4, those six English translations have "courtesy" while the KJV follows the 1582 Rheims' Latin-based rendering "clemency."

At Acts 25:23, those six English translations have "chief men" while the KJV has "principal men" in agreement with the Rheims.

At Mark 13:22, those six English Bibles have "deceive" while the KJV has "seduce" in agreement with the 1582 Rheims.

At Luke 19:21, 22, none of those six English Bibles in the rule have "austere" which is found in the 1582 Rheims.

At Luke 19:23, "usury" is the rendering in the 1582 Rheims while those six English Bibles have "vantage."

At Luke 23:19, the six English translations have "insurrection" while the Rheims and KJV have "sedition."

Was the 1582 Rheims the source of the KJV's rendering "malignity" at Romans 1:29 since the six English Bibles in the rule do not have that rendering?

At 2 Corinthians 1:12, those six English translations have "pureness" where the Rheims and KJV have "sincerity".

See the 1902 book entitled The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible by James Carleton for many more examples.

 

Again, I'll ask, why is the Word "purified seven times" English and not Japanese? Put up or shut up. Until you answer this I am going to assume that you are all about English and America, and have no burden to fulfill the Great Commission in any other language but English.

I just got an email from a pastor with a Japanese lady in his church who is asking about the Japanese Bible. What shall I tell her? do you have any wisdom about the Bible being preserved by God in other languages?

 

Well, then what about Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi...?

 

You fail to prove that the KJV has been actually purified seven times. It has been demonstrated that the KJV was based on more than six earlier English Bibles.

It was soundly demonstrated that you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the phrase "purified seven times".

 

Were the Vulgate/Geneva/Tyndale also "purified 7 times?" were they also scripture? So unless John of Japan uses the Kjv in japan, he would not be using the word of god to them?

 

No, the KJV hasn't been purified ONCE. It has been REVISED several times by MEN. The KJV is a product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men, same as are all other Bible translations in any language. And the KJV does have man-made goofs in it, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

And, are the Japanese any less-important to GOD than the British or Americans are?

 

So, I reread it. All I find are historical arguments that English is the language fulfilling the prophecy. (And by the way, that begs the question: how do you know that the Ps. 12 passage is even a prophecy? The Psalms are not generally prophetic, with few exceptions.)

Your main argument appears to be that English is a "universal language" (it is not) and therefore the fulfillment must be English. However, many Frenchmen take the position that French is the lingua franca of the world, and indeed French vies for first place in many places in Africa and elsewhere. In Cameroon, for example (where I have traveled as a Bible translation consultant), French is actually more prevalent than English, and Chinese is becoming well known. (I gave a Chinese tract to an African Chinese teacher in Cameroon.) Spanish also has a great claim to being the lingua franca of the world (your "universal language" which is not universal at all).

Note this chart: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-7-maps-and-charts/?utm_term=.b0c82837d7b3

There are 1.39 billion Chinese speakers in "all dialects." Now, while those dialects pronounce words differently, they can all read the same Bible. Tell me why the Chinese Bible is not the Word of God purified seven times. (I am not including versions that do not include the whole Bible.)

1. Robert Morrison's version
2. 遺詔全書, 1822
3. Lassar-Marshman Version (遺詔全書, 1822)
4. 神天聖書, 1823–1824
5. Morrison-Milne Version (神天聖書, 1823-1824)
6. Delegates Version (委辦譯本 or 代表譯本, 1854)
7. Chinese Union Version (和合本), 1904–1919

Many Chinese believe that the Chinese Union Version is the pure Word of God: "Union Only" believers, one might call them. Tell me why they are wrong and you are right. Why is the KJV and not the CUV the preserved Word of God for the world?

Really? You consider 123 million to be "few"? (This does not include Japanese speakers outside of Japan, such as the huge number of Koreans forced to learn Japanese in WW2.)

 

Here is the Chinese Union Version John 3:16--神愛世人、甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們、叫一切信他的、不至滅亡、反得永生。

Here is our Lifeline Japanese NT John 3:16--なぜなら、ご自分の唯一お生みになった子を与えられたほどに、神はこうしてこの世を愛されました。それは、すべて子を信じる人が、滅びることなく永遠の命を持つためなのです。

I wonder if JohnBaptistHenry (or any other KJVO advocate) can tell me why the KJV is more worthy of preservation, or more likely to be inerrant than these versions. Chinese and Japanese people read these versions with joy and understanding. (There are currently 86,000 Lifeline John & Romans being distributed there.) I love the KJV, but I love these versions also.