Jerome recognized the difference

[Bob Krajcik]

Jerome recognized the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian. The Catholic Church recognizes the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian, and bases their official version today, as then, on the Alexandrian readings. Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian recognized there is a difference. F. J. A. Hort certainly recognized a difference. He said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..." Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts."

Now why do so many today, wanting to replace the readings of the Received Text as used for the 1611 King James Version, say there is no real difference? And why, since they say there is no difference, do they want to replace the readings?



Bob Krajcik

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Now why do so many today, wanting to replace the readings of the Received Text as used for the 1611 King James Version, say there is no real difference? And why, since they say there is no difference, do they want to replace the readings?

Because study of the versions and the texts bears out the truth that there is no doctrinal difference. In years of trying, the advocates of the KJOnly position have yet to show one doctrine that has been weakened by modern translations.

The "replacing" of the readings is due to a desire to be honest with the text of Scripture and God's providence in preserving it for us. We do not wish to gloss over the evidence and ignore. We desire to be honest with it. Therefore, we go where the evidence takes us.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

The Significance Of Our Bible

Bruce M. Metzger admits it was not the Received Text but instead Jerome used the Alexandrian Greek for the Latin Vulgate (382-400) of the Catholic Church. Jerome had enmity of the Received text, the Greek Vulgate. The Itala Vulgate (157), also sometimes referred to as the Old Latin Vulgate, was based on the Greek Vulgate or Received Text. The Itala was in the way of the Catholic Church.

Jerome being commissioned by the Catholic Church translated a revision of the Itala Vulgate, Jerome’s Vulgate coming to be known as the Latin Vulgate (382). The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate, based on the Alexandrian family, was used for ushering in the Dark Ages.

Amidst persecution and bloodshed, for one thousand years the Waldenses, Albigenses, and other groups of Christians rejected the Catholic Church and their Latin Vulgate, and copied the Received Text as used for the Itala Vulgate.

B. M. Metzger admits copies of the Old Latin were being copied from the forth through the thirteenth century. That is a history stained with blood.

Through history, 1545-1563 the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate the official Bible of the Catholic Church. In 1592 Pope Clement VIII authorized another authentic addition of the Latin Vulgate. While all the time that was the official version of the Catholic Church, it was not the readings used by Christians.

Jerome recognized the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian. The Catholic Church recognizes the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian, and bases their official version today, as then, on the Alexandrian readings. Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian recognized there is a difference. Those Christians that used the Received Text at the cost of their blood certainly recognized there was a difference. F. J. A. Hort recognized a difference, and said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..." Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts."

The Received Text, the Textus Receptus was used by Christians those many years and that at the cost of much blood. For fifteen hundred years the Textus Receptus was used by Christians, and the Alexandrian readings rejected. The readings of the Alexandrian remained the foundation during that time by the Catholic Church and is the foundation used for the Catholic Church yet today. Today, since 1881 the many modern versions being issued are based on the Alexandrian readings and so align with the Catholic Church in that respect, using the Alexandrian family, and not the readings of the Reformation, so are on the opposite side of the many that lost their blood beginning back in the first centuries of Christendom, to hold the Received text, and so are opposed to the Textus Receptus (Antiocian family), Tyndale's Bible, Luther's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Version.

Bob Krajcik

 

[AV Defender]

Because study of the versions and the texts bears out the truth that there is no doctrinal difference. In years of trying, the advocates of the KJOnly position have yet to show one doctrine that has been weakened by modern translations.

Sure,take out as much as you like;remove every verse or parts of verses that you dont like,can't understand,or cuts you(Heb 4:12)and then claim since you left some you did like or whatever,then a LITTLE LEAVEN DID'NT Leaven the WHOLE LUMP after all..It is the same rhetoric used by people who hate having one FINAL AUTHORITY instead of over 200(or more by now) conflicting authorities,or "scholarship"as a final authority;according to them it is perfectly 'Godly' to "remove it from the KJV as long as you can find a "basic doctrine" somewhere in their work..

[ January 12, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[Steve K.]

AAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEENNNN!! Bob &JYD Those new versions are the product of corrupt manuscripts that do not even agree with each other .The so called scholars that recommend them trust to two manuscripts that don't match and reject 6000 that do. In so doing they call their reference the majority. What a bad joke!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Now why do so many today, wanting to replace the readings of the Received Text as used for the 1611 King James Version, say there is no real difference? And why, since they say there is no difference, do they want to replace the readings?

You are confusing differences of textual lines with differences of doctrine. There are occasional differences in readings between the text-types, just as there are between manuscripts of the SAME text-type, even in the "TR" line. I'm sure you'd agree that "there's no real difference" between the editions of the TR, while at the same time recognizing differences in readings. Same thing here, just on a little bigger scale.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by BrianT: You are confusing differences of textual lines with differences of doctrine.

Jerome, the Catholic Church, Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian, Christians that used the Received Text at the cost of their blood, F. J. A. Hort, and Vance Smith would have been really impressed at having you explain to them there is really no difference, and that they were confused. Just think if you were there how different things would have been had they listened to you.

Do you really believe what you are saying?

Bob Krajcik

 

[Steve K.]

AMEN! BOB FOR PRESIDENT!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Jerome recognized the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian.

Precisely how is that possible since the phrase "Received Text" would not be coined for over 1000 after Jerome's death?

F. J. A. Hort certainly recognized a difference. He said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..."

Do you have a reference for this quote? Especially since you use ellipsis twice. These missing words my provide some context.

Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts."

Once again a citation would be nice or perhaps a complete quote. As a side not, Dr. Smith denied the deity of Christ so inserting "God" for "Son" at John 1:18 as the W & H text did would have been particularly perplexing to him.

Now why do so many today, wanting to replace the readings of the Received Text as used for the 1611 King James Version, say there is no real difference?

Prove there is a doctrinal difference... and prove your point.

And why, since they say there is no difference, do they want to replace the readings?



Bob Krajcik

Perhaps because they believe their readings to be more accurate with more evidence to support them than those chosen by Erasmus.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
Christians that used the Received Text at the cost of their blood,

Can you cite some legitimate historical source that says anyone lost their life for using the TR?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:

Do you really believe what you are saying?

Bob, previously on this forum we've repeatedly asked for such differences in doctrine between the versions. After dozens of attempts, none were actually provided. Can you provide some?

 

[BrianT]

BTW, can you provide references for all those quotes? Due to the oft-repeated practice of out-of-context quotes, I would like to verify some of them for myself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by JYD:
Sure,take out as much as you like;remove every verse or parts of verses that you dont like,can't understand,or cuts you(Heb 4:12)and then claim since you left some you did like or whatever,then a LITTLE LEAVEN DID'NT Leaven the WHOLE LUMP after all..It is the same rhetoric used by people who hate having one FINAL AUTHORITY instead of over 200(or more by now) conflicting authorities,or "scholarship"as a final authority;according to them it is perfectly 'Godly' to "remove it from the KJV as long as you can find a "basic doctrine" somewhere in their work..

We haven't taken out "anything as we like." That is not the issue. We keep saying that but it doesn't seem like you are listening. The question is not, What does the KJV say? The question is, What did God say? YOu cannot simply ignore the evidence that you don't like. We have verifiable proof that you have cut from consideration the evidence that God has perserved for us. We are not removing anything from the KJV. Everything in the KJV is still there (including the changes that have accumulated in it through the years). The issue deals with the objective evidence, not the subjective feelings of those who think their faith might be threatened by an MV.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bob Krajcik:
The Significance Of Our Bible

Bruce M. Metzger admits it was not the Received Text but instead Jerome used the Alexandrian Greek for the Latin Vulgate (382-400) of the Catholic Church. Jerome had enmity of the Received text, the Greek Vulgate. The Itala Vulgate (157), also sometimes referred to as the Old Latin Vulgate, was based on the Greek Vulgate or Received Text. The Itala was in the way of the Catholic Church.

Jerome being commissioned by the Catholic Church translated a revision of the Itala Vulgate, Jerome’s Vulgate coming to be known as the Latin Vulgate (382).

It seems remarkable to me that Jerome who:
1- prepared for this work in Bethlehem with access to both Antioch and Alexandria,
2- feuded with Origen making Alexandria no more a friend than Antioch,
3- was not baptized into the church as an infant but became a Christian and was baptized in his twenties,
4- was "catholic" before most of the major heresies were introduced, and
5- was only about 300 years removed from the originals

can be less trustworthy than Erasmus who had very poor resources- thousands of miles and 1400 years removed from the source. Erasmus, who lived after most of Romes devilish doctrines were enshrined, was confronted with these major heresies in the reformation and remained convinced of the "true" church, rejecting the pleas of the protestants.

The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate, based on the Alexandrian family, was used for ushering in the Dark Ages.

No version of the scripture, good or bad, ushered in the Dark Ages any more than the KJV ushered in the colonial rape of Africa... this claim is idiocy.