My issue is, when he is provided with information regarding Bibles using a particular phrase, why won't he update his lists to reflect that fact? Still waiting for an answer...
Last edited:
-
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!
KJV-only failures to correct errors
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
I did not claim that the KJV translators followed "for certain" the 1582 Rheims in all the examples in my list. I clearly noted that they were "likely" examples, and I had noted that there may be other possible sources for some of them.
There are scholars who evidently may see a pattern and think that the KJV translators often made use of the Rheims in their revising of the Bishops' Bible instead of seeking earlier possible sources.
Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv).
Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).
How much of the Kjv was Tynsdale and Geneva Bibles then?
Aren't Waite and Cloud a couple of the main proponents for the King James superiority over those from the Alexandrian texts?
D. A. Waite and David Cloud also use inconsistent, unjust measures/standards in their allegations and attacks on English Bible translations such as the NKJV which are based on the same original-language texts as the KJV.
Cameron Alli
New Member
KJV-onlyism is wrong, intellecutally and factually.
Just look at Exodus 20:13, which the KJV has as "Thou shalt not kill." The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder." Killing is sometimes justified in the Bible, such as in self-defense, or if you are administering a capital execution on someone who has been found guilty of a capital crime.
The NKJV is the way to go
Just look at Exodus 20:13, which the KJV has as "Thou shalt not kill." The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder." Killing is sometimes justified in the Bible, such as in self-defense, or if you are administering a capital execution on someone who has been found guilty of a capital crime.
The NKJV is the way to go
I've been out of the picture for a bit. Both of these gentlemen are fundamentalists, right? Yet you say that you can't get them to answer your allegations? Doesn't sound like the nature of a fundy, from what I remember.
When you mentioned the Rhemes, were you referencing the Douay Rhemes? Or do I have them confused?
The Rheims New Testament was printed first in 1582 while the Douay Old Testament was not printed until 1609-1610, when printed together making the Douay-Rheims.
I understand. Thank you. I had always thought that the Roman Catholic answer to the King James Version was the Douay-Rheims Version. Once the KJV was printed it even became popular with catholic priests. So much so, that they were even using it from behind their pulpits. Hence, my confusion.
I thought ther standard catholic Bible was their New American Bible?
So what date did the Douay-Rheims version show up?
What I noted was that David Cloud was unwilling even to read and examine the facts and evidence provided for him. David Cloud could easily have compared my list to the 1611 edition and a present KJV to see if the differences were there.
D. A. Waite may have looked at it, but he dismissed or avoided half of it. So far as I know, D. A. Waite has not printed a new list with the 1095 differences between the 1611 and a present KJV so that others can see whether he used consistent, just measures in dismissing almost another one thousand differences I listed between the two. He likely still sells his booklet with the old list of only 421 differences.
When other fundamentalists wrote a book critical of KJV-only claims, D. A. Waite would (in a few months) write hastily a short book in response. Several years ago D. A. Waite obtained a copy of my book, but he never printed a response or reply to it. I wonder if he realized that he could not soundly answer it without exposing his inconsistent attempt to be KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time.
So what other assertion have you made that have been ignored, if it's no too much trouble?
Here is another example.
The title pages of D. A. Waite's The Defined King James Bible claim that it has "the Cambridge 1769 Text" "unaltered," but that would not be factually true. The word “unaltered” would seem to be a broad-sweeping claim that not even one letter or one word of the “Cambridge 1769 Text” was altered in Waite’s edition.
D. A. Waite wrote: “The Cambridge 1769 is a good standard to be used, as we do in our Defined King James Bible” (Critical Answer to James Price’s King James Onlyism, p. 130).
According to my examination of over 400 editions of the KJV including a KJV edition printed by Cambridge in 1769, there would be well over 400 alterations or differences between an actual edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 and the edition in Waite’s Defined KJB. I mailed Waite a copy of my book with facts from KJV editions.
The KJV edition in Waite’s Defined KJB would actually be based more on the 1769 Oxford than on a 1769 Cambridge since the 1769 Cambridge did not have all the changes introduced in the 1769 Oxford that are followed or found in Waite’s edition. The text of the KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 still has the three so-called Oxford errors (2 Chron. 33:19, Jer. 34:16, Nahum 3:16). A KJV edition printed by Cambridge in 1769 kept or followed several of the renderings which characterized the 1743 or 1762 Cambridge KJV editions and which are not found in most present KJV editions including Waite's edition.
Perhaps D. A. Waite has never actually seen and examined an edition of the KJV that was printed at Cambridge in 1769, and assumed something that is not true.
The title page of several editions of the DKJB could be properly asserted to have misinformed its readers.
Thank you. Personally, I would have jumped all over those assertions. At one time that is. Search my history on the board and you'll probably see that. However, I believe you probably won't receive an answer from them because of certain "observations" being made by scholars in the KJVO camp. I call what they are seeing in their eyes, the Amos 8:11-12 Dilemma. So I don't risk sounding like a fool, I probably won't discuss what those observations are. I do know that I, at one time, was an avid apologist, using only the KJV as my foundation. But that will probably not be the case any longer. And probably not for the reasons you may assume.
I would like the source for that anecdote. The Douay-Rheims preceded the KJV and, being translated from the Vulgate, would have been much more familiar to the priests than the newfangled KJV, even though the Rheims did owe a debt to Tyndale and Geneva. Not to mention that the KJV was not authorized for use (then as today) for Catholics.
Being translated from the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims maintained many latinisms. A criticism of the ERV was that it was excellent Greek but poor English; the original D-R was perhaps good Latin but poor English.
Of course, the D-R that most English-speaking Catholics know is the Challoner revision of 1749-52, almost contemporary with the Oxford and Cambridge revisions of the KJV. Challoner's revision essentially moved the D-R closer to the KJV. John Henry Newman said that "Looking at Dr. Challoner's labours as a whole, we may pronounce that they issue in little short of a new translation. They can as little be said to be made on the basis of the Douay as on the basis of the Protestant version. Of course there must be a certain resemblance between any two Catholic versions whatever, because they are both translations of the same Vulgate; but, this connection between the Douay and Challoner being allowed for, Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction."
The Challoner revision, like the KJV, has been revised over the years.
The New American Bible (and its revision) is popular as the newest translation essentially based on the Critical Text. The Douay-Rheims Challoner revision still is popular among the older Catholics, much like the KJV is still preferred among older Protestants.
The American bishops have approved a number of translations, including the GNT and CEV.
An odd fact is that the NAB is not universally approved for liturgical use, i.e., its wording is not included in the standard services.