1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Side-stepping other motivations for KJV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 30, 2018.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is the KJV still printed in modern times also a modern version since KJV-only advocates will claim that it is English that can be understood today?

    Do you suggest that the KJV is an archaic, out-dated version since you seem to suggest that it is not a present-day modern English Bible translation in the same sense as the NKJV?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Present English Bible translations can be called and identified by the actual, real names instead of the bogus, false names that KJV-only advocates may use to try to smear them through use of unscriptural, unjust measures [double standards] and through use of fallacies.

    The KJV is an English Bible translation in the same exact sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the same exact sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Forever Settled

    Forever Settled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We agree !
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  4. Dave Gilbert

    Dave Gilbert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    361
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, it has.
    But I feel the need to add something...

    Among all the present-day English translations on the market ( excepting the "KJV" ), I see all of them ( at least the popular ones ) developed for money, while the AV was never developed for making money.
    If it were really about arriving at a "best translation" in English today, that work would have been completed long ago.

    Plus, the so-called "translators" of today wouldn't keep insisting on using a Greek apparatus that is biased in favor of only a small block of disagreeing manuscripts, while ignoring the vast number of existing witnesses.

    I know of a dear friend that calls most of today's modern English "bibles", "Vatican versions" because of their almost total reliance on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
     
    #24 Dave Gilbert, Feb 9, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Forever Settled

    Forever Settled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ricky you are just grabbing at straws with this post.....really ?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Forever Settled

    Forever Settled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree completely but we are in the minority....sadly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Waldensian Bibles do not actually agree with the 1611 KJV in a good number of readings and renderings.

    Many KJV-only claims about the Waldensian Bibles seem to have come from the inaccurate or misleading claims of Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson whether directly from his book or as reprinted in Fuller’s book Which Bible. Benjamin Wilkinson claimed: “This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken in the days of the Reformation” (Fuller, Which Bible, p. 128). In 2005, David Cloud acknowledged that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13).

    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).

    KJV defender and pastor Glenn 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). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Forever Settled

    Forever Settled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mine came from neither.

    Here you go again attempting to tie the KJB to the cults.....HH has taught you better than to do that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It has not been demonstrated that all the reasons for the developing of the KJV were good and sound.

    King James hated the good and loved Geneva Bible, and he wanted it replaced. King James obtained money from the making of the KJV since he had the printer pay him for rights to its printing. Printers have made money on printing the KJV.

    The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bible to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government views and more favorable to the divine-right of kings view of King James.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. Dave Gilbert

    Dave Gilbert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    361
    Faith:
    Baptist
    May I make a suggestion?
    I've learned the hard way that this forum is not a good place to discuss this subject, as so many here take the opposite tack and see nothing wrong or missing in today's "bibles" when compared to the AV...that, or they just don't see it as important.

    Try not to get involved in the back-and-forth, as the opposition will positively stagger your imagination, IMO.;)
     
    #30 Dave Gilbert, Feb 9, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your allegation is not true.

    I did not tie the KJV to the cults as you improperly allege. You improperly misrepresent what I actually stated.

    Instead I properly pointed out the source for many typical KJV-only claims about Waldensian translations. Your KJV-only source may have obtained his claim from another KJV-only source which would evidently lead back to Fuller's book Which Bible.

    Many KJV-only claims about the Waldensian Bibles seem to have come from the inaccurate or misleading claims of Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin G. Wilkinson whether directly from his book or as reprinted in Fuller’s book Which Bible

    The facts refuted your unproven claim concerning Waldensian Bible translations.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Forever Settled

    Forever Settled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    45
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well you are wrong.

    My source is a very old book that I can read with great concentration.

    There are other quotes from other groups in the second century to the year 1000.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually this is a very good place to discuss the subject of Bible translations if a person can back up what they claim with facts and if they focus on discussing ideas or concepts rather than attacking people.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  14. Heretic Hunter

    Heretic Hunter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is not true and we know it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Dave Gilbert

    Dave Gilbert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    1,702
    Likes Received:
    361
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In my last reply to this thread, I will state this:

    Due to the obvious ( to me ) lack of arriving at a new standard Bible in the English, it has been demonstrated that out of all of today's popular English translations, not one was developed with an eye to accuracy as great as that found in the "KJV", and not one of them was ever developed with the eventual goal of attaining a singular, "best" translation in the English.

    Whether it's in using the CT or in avoiding, in their wording, other copyrighted "bibles" out there, none are satisfactory, in my estimation...not even the "NKJV".
    As I see it, the train rolls on with no end in sight, no matter what rhetoric is constructed in support of the current, for-profit publisher-supported translation efforts in English.



    I have the Bible I started out my sojourn with, and it's a good one, from my perspective.
    Again, as I've stated many times before, I see no reason to spend money that I know can go towards helping my brothers and sisters, in purchasing a "bible" that disagrees in so many places with the one that I know is God's word in my own language.;)

    I have no desire to attack people, but I also have no desire to engage in conversation with those who are convinced that nothing is wrong with the modern English translations, either.
    The facts are well-known on the internet, and this forum isn't likely to change any of the predominant thinking anywhere.

    Finally,
    I don't have to "prove" anything.
    My opinion is my own, and my research into this subject is very intensive.

    I'm not satisfied that I can ever trust anyone but God Himself to show me where to find His words...and I'm very satisfied that He already has.


    May God bless all of you greatly. :)
     
    #35 Dave Gilbert, Feb 9, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You do not prove your claim to be true.

    Perhaps you make an incorrect allegation against English Bible translators since they would assert that their translations were developed with an eye to accuracy as great as that found in the 1611 KJV.

    Later English Bible translators often had the same exact goals and aims as the KJV translators stated in their preface to the 1611.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your opinion is incorrect.

    Perhaps you may be unable to avoid using fallacies, using unjust measures/standards, and using personal attacks to advocate your KJV-only opinions.

    Are you perhaps unwilling to follow the rules to which you agree when you join a forum?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Heretic Hunter

    Heretic Hunter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    31
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Got yourself all worked up today, when you were confronted with irrefutable truth, didn't you? Wasn't it nice to have the facts removed from your presence so as not to disturb the delusion? Just think of the people that had their ears tickled as the Ten Commandments were removed from Public Buildings; Were your ears tickled when The Holy Bible was removed from Public Schools? Were your ears tickled when God and prayer were kicked out of Public Schools along with The Holy Bible, of which you campaign so diligently against? Are you perhaps unwilling to obey God as ruler, rather than men?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    883
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Just because the KJV has the words 'Holy Bible' on it, does not mean its the only one.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. MartyF

    MartyF Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2018
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    60
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Cool . . . so can you teach me how to find and breed cockatrices and unicorns?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...