How accurate is this?

Please don't insinuate. I have not one time called either man a liar. I have said that Jack Chick was fooled and I have said that Alberto's information cannot be trusted.

--------------------------------------------------

It is common knowledge that Alberto is the source for Chick's information on Catholicism.

As for the Vulgate being the source text for the Catholic Bible (in any language), that is a true statement. But it is also common knowledge. So you point is...?

 

Now, what was the question you asked in your OP? I'd be happy to answer it, but I never saw it. But remember, various charges in the tract (murder of a translator, Jerome used Satanic mss., the Jesuits as spies, the Vatican deciding to destroy the KJV, the RV being Catholic, etc. etc.) are not sourced at all, and no one else makes those charges.

 

Your question has been answered.

It is impossible to know how accurate the tract is. Look at Chick's own statement before the first frames of the comic. The claims have only been made by one man who had no supporting documentation. No one else has come along to support his claims. He has no papers and no proof. That makes the accuracy of his supposed historical account doubtful at best.


Catholic bibles using the Vulgate in translation is accurate. It is also accurate to say it was used in the work of the KJT.

 

It was not the entire last chapter only a few sentences, but it did include the "Do not remove or add to this book" etc.

Let me make a point about that statement. Remember the Bible is made of many books and Revelation is the only real completely "prophetic" genre of the NT age. (Not to leave our Jesus' statements on the future, which were quotes in a different genre book.)

That sentence is found at the end of many prophecies that were NOT used in the Bible.

It is well known by scholars, I can find you quotes, that this statement was typically added to the end of prophetical books during the 1st century as a copyright or warning that "Look I have written this phrophecy and you are not to change it because I believe it to be from God."

Nowhere does it refer to the entire Bible. It was simply a copyright style of stamp placed at the end of many prophecies that were even rejected, as I said before, but want to clarify it.

Very similar to the early English printings of the KJV having "Authorized Version" printed on it. There were lots of bootleg copies that were illegal in England being imported and the one, then two printers who did most of the early printing added this to the very front of the Bible to let people know the King of England had granted them permission, through the payment of royalties to print the book. So, when people bought one they knew it was printed legally. No different than a fiction book with the internal note: "Please do not buy copies of this book with the cover torn off because this means it has been written off the books and the writer will not receive a just royalty for its sale." Or just plain "Copyright 2010" by so and so, all rights reserved.

One note: Did God intend this statement for the entire Bible? Some preachers preach that all the time, but that was not the original meaning for the author of Revelation to place it in the book.

And yes, about the last three or four verses were the only parts that came from the Vulgate, but the Vulgate was often considered by the translators in order to check their translations throughout the Bible during the KJV translation. This does NOT make the KJV a bad translation, nor am I KJVO.

The KJVO likes to call us MV's which is incorrect because I do like reading from the KJV (but I did grow up with it and like the sound of the English rendering in it.) and I do trust it, but I do not always trust my understanding of it. Does that make sense?

 

Actually, it was nearly the final 6 verses. Erasmus seems to have used only one 12th century manuscript for Revelation which he had borrowed from Johann Reuchlin. That document is now known as Miniscule #2814 (prevoiusly known as 1rK, where the r indicated Revelation as the contents). This parchment codex is not a simple copy of the scripture text but intermixes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea.

 

Yes, you are correct. This is well known and documented, but I don't point to websites; probably 90% are wrong anyway. They are whatever the author wants to put up.

If you will notice, the posts placing links to places of reference are usually on KJVO sites and sites we don't want to follow because they are similar or equal to conspiracy theories.

Search area 51 if those others of you don't believe me. I've been there, I can't talk about what they have, its mostly research items that are stored; I can say that much---- but it is technology from America and no flying saucer exists...say what you want.

One website had a conspiracy theory of my group the Defense Ammunition Center and why it was moved to a town the same name from Savannah, Ill to Savannah, OK. Coincidence, plus he said we did all sorts of weird stuff. It was passed around to the whole DAC group, about 350 or so and we got a big kick out of it. We don't do anything this guy said we did. We are simply the safety support for the Joint Forces and allies for Ammunition Management; plus we do not do nuclear work. I can say that much without trouble.

My point is, don't believe web references and I know you, annsni; know that, this was for the others.

Have a great Lord's day!