What textual problem?... I personally don't see one?... Isn't everyone on here entitle to read and study what version they want to... Everyone who knows Brother Glen on here, knows I read and study the KJV... But it is the one I love and enjoy and desire... I post from the KJV but I don't nitpick and run down others on here that don't read what I do... This is my preference as what version you read is yours... I think it is high time we build each other up and quit tearing each other down... We should be thankful we have a Bible period. No matter what translation it is... Can you name another book the draws you closer to your Lord and God Jesus Christ?... I know of only one!... God Bless You All... Brother Glen
These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Martin Andrews, Mar 29, 2017.
Page 6 of 8
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Martin Andrews MemberSite Supporter
-
I prefer the KJV, NKJV, EMTV, WEB, and other Byzantine based versions.
But I will use any bible available when necessary. Some years ago a Navy Chief who had recently been saved and baptized came to me and asked me to talk to his wife about the Lord. She was a JW. He warned me not to bring a bible or she would walk out of the room, so I didn't.
We sat down at the kitchen table and talked, and eventually got around to spiritual things. I asked if I could see her bible, and I led her to the Lord using her NWT.
As bad as the NWT is, it is still the word of God.
2 Timothy 3:15 From infancy, you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.
If the NWT was able to make her wise unto salvation it is, according to Paul, "the holy scriptures." -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Personally, I am in no doubt at all that Paul wrote Θεος. I believe that about 97% of the extant Greek MSS have it.
I am less certain of 1 John 5:7 because as TCassidy has pointed out, it is only contained in a few very late MSS. I have read your link, and I'm aware that Matthew Henry, Dabney and others have argued along the same lines, but it's very hard to understand why it would be missing in so many MSS. Even the early Vulgate Latin texts don't contain it. However, the fact is that the verse is true: there are three that testify in heaven, and the three are one. :) -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
One of your statements seems to be suggesting that textual editors are Bible translators when they are not the same.
You have not demonstrated that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who acted as a textual critic in editing his edition of the Greek NT, is more trustworthy in his doctrinal views and views of the Bible than later textual critics.
The Church of England views of the makers of the KJV may not be more sound concerning the Bible than the views of all present Bible translators.
The 1568 Bishops' Bible has not been demonstrated to be better overall than the 1560 Geneva Bible. -
Have you actually researched the views of Lancelot Andrewes and read any of his writings? I have.
Marianne Dorman observed that “Andrewes advocated auricular confession” (Andrewes, p. 19). Dorman wrote: “The other sacrament that Andrewes emphasized as important in the life of a Christian is the sacrament of Penance, or Confession” (p. 128). Raymond Chapman maintained that In Andrewes’ “sermon ‘Of the Powers of Absolution’ he defends sacramental confession and the priestly power of absolution, both supported in the Book of Common Prayer” (Before the King’s Majesty, pp. 81-82). In this sermon on John 20:23, Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147). The Dictionary of Literary Biography confirmed that "in 1600 Andrewes gave direct offense by preaching in defense of priestly absolution" (Vol. 172, p. 5). Dorman cited from his Visitation Articles where Andrewes wrote: “By the minister he [the parishioner] may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience” (Andrewes, p. 128).
Dorman noted that Andrewes “depicted Lent as that precious time given for making a reckoning of our lives and, accordingly, for making our amends by repentance--and afterwards by fasting, prayer, and almsgiving” (p. 45). Brightman referred to Andrewes' "strict observance of Lent and Embertides and the other fasts" (Private Devotions, p. xlv). Brightman also cited where Andrewes wrote: "For offering and prayer for the dead, there is little to be said against it" (p. xxvii).
In one sermon in 1615, Andrewes referred to Christ’s baptism as “Christ’s christening” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 53). Dorman commented: “For Andrewes, the only way to become a Christian is through the sacrament of Baptism” (Andrewes, p. 127). In a sermon, Andrewes noted: “By Him we are regenerate at the first in our baptism” (Ninety-Six Sermons, III, p. 191). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation observed that Andrewes taught that "the means of grace are the sacraments" (I, p. 42). Raymond Chapman referred to the “sacramentalism” of Andrewes (Before, p. 11). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church pointed out that Andrewes "held a high doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasizing that in the sacrament we receive the true body and blood of Christ and constantly using sacrificial language of the rite" (p. 61). Dorman maintained that “for Andrewes, to receive Christ’s body at the Eucharist is the most wonderful and important thing that we do during our earthly pilgrimage” (Andrewes, p. 2). Trevor Owen also noted that Andrewes in his book Responsio declared that his church regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 35). MacCulloch described Andrewes as a ceremonialist and sacramentalist (Boy King, p. 213).
Ross Williamson observed that "though Andrewes attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation, as it was formulated in 1215, he held fast to the essentially Catholic conception of the Mass as a Sacrifice" (Four Stuart Portraits, p. 76). Hylson-Smith confirmed that Andrewes “had a high doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasizing the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and stressing that in the sacrament we receive the true body and blood of Christ” (High Churchmanship, p. 21). In a sermon, Andrewes commented: "For the Church hath ever believed a true fruition of the true body of Christ in that Sacrament" (Ninety-Six Sermons, p. 67). The high Anglicans of the Andrewes-Laud-Cosin school of divines held to a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Davies, Worship and Theology, II, p. 286). Trevor-Roper wrote: "To the high Churchman, however, the table was an altar, the communion a magic function; the sacraments were the body and blood of Christ, transmuted by the divine power delegated to the priest; and no reverence, no ceremonies, were superfluous in the presence of so important and formidable a mystery" (Archbishop Laud, p. 45).
The Dictionary of National Biography noted that Andrewes "had his private chapels adorned with what Prynne calls 'popish furniture'" (I, p. 403). John Hunt maintained that Prynne described Andrewes’ private chapel as having “all the sacerdotal utensils of a Roman Catholic church” (I, p. 125 note). McClintock observed that the Puritans charged Andrewes "with popery and superstition because of the ornaments of his chapel and the ceremonies there" (Cyclopaedia, I, pp. 223-224). Kenneth Bradstreet, a fundamentalist, claimed: “It should be clear that Lancelot Andrewes was not just Romish in the outward, symbolic sense, he was thoroughly Roman Catholic in his doctrine as well” (KJV in History, p. 116). In one sermon, Andrewes referred to "the blessed virgin" (Hewison, Selected Writings, p. 10). Andrewes also referred to "Mary evervirgin" (Private Devotions, p. 59). Dorman quoted where Andrewes referred to “the most holy, pure, highly blessed, the Mother of God, Mary the eternal Virgin” (Andrewes, p. 69). Trevor Owen cited one passage in Andrewes's Devotions where he wrote about Mary the following: "the all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and ever virgin Mary" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 58). Thus, Andrewes accepted the traditional Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. -
Who had authority over him Logos? It wasn't about the authority the man had, because that would have most certainly been kept into check by the process. Please read the following and see if you believe the works could have been fiddled with considering such a maze of anti-fiddling-with procedures... Hey, did I make up a new term? Anti-fiddling-with???
In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four (54) Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible from the Received Text (named "Textus Receptus" after the translation was completed) for the people who spoke the English language. The number was reduced to forty-seven (47) by the time the work actually began in 1607. Instead of working together all in one place, these men were divided into six (6) individual teams, which worked at three (3) separate locations. There were two (2) teams at Oxford, two (2) at Westminster, and two (2) at Cambridge. Each team was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate. Each individual scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by every member of his team. The entire team then went over the book together. Once a team had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five (5) teams. Any and all questionable and objectionable translation was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original team for consideration. A special committee was then formed by selecting one (1) leader from each team. This committee ironed out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611. So then the King James Bible had to pass at least fourteen (14) examinations before going to the printer. Throughout this entire process, any learned scholar of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.
Page 6 of 8