Featured Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

Waldensian Bibles were translated from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

Perhaps you blindly accept unproven claims at unreliable KJV-only web sites or in KJV-only books. 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).

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.”

 

The Waldesains did not reject the deuterocanonical books (what you call the Apocrypha).

---> https://books.google.com/books?id=mp...page&q&f=false).


Here are historical Waldesians documents (in Dublin) containing the book of Wisdom...

---> https://archive.org/stream/TheBooksO...udois_djvu.txt

--> http://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/hom...S_ID=MS261_001

 

Some of the reformers saw them as being valuable as historical documents, but were Never seen as being inspired as the 66 Books of canon were by God!

 

Wrong on two accounts.

First, there has never been a 66-book canon in all of Christian history until the Protestants invented it. Never. Ever.

Secondly, the Waldenses did not view the deuterocanonical books (what Protestants call the Apocrypha) as merely "valuable" or "historical documents." Rather, they viewed them as Scripture.

"As to the Waldenses, I may simply repeat here what I have proved at length elsewhere - viz, that the common opinion which gives them the honour of having made a careful separation between the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the canonical books, is false and erroneous on every point." - Eduard Reuss (a Protestant), "History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures", pg. 264

Here's an example of a section of a Waldenses Bible found in the Books of the Vaudois housed at Trinity College in Dublin containing the book of Wisdom (a deuterocanonical book)...

---> The Books of the Vaudois : The Waldensian manuscripts preserved in the library of Trinity College, Dublin : With an appendix, containing a correspondence (reprinted from the British Magazine) on the poems of the poor of Lyons, the antiquity and genuineness of the Waldensian literature, and the supposed loss of the Morland Mss. at Cambridge : With Mr. Bradshaw's paper on his recent discovery of them : Todd, James Henthorn : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

the truth is that the OT canon was already firmly established by the time of Jesus, as they did not see as inspired those non canonical "other books" of the time like a Tobit, and that by end of the first Century, pretty much was agreed upon that all by 4 N books were to be seen as also being inspired by God...
the 4 in so called dispute were Hebrews/2 peter. due to uncertainity over authorship, james, as some saw differences between him and paul, and revelation, as did not know if John the Apostle or John the Elder wrote it.
So the 66 inspired canon books were firmly set early on, and never included any others as being inspired!

 

You are clearly talking out of your hat and making it up as you go.

The first century Church (as well as Christ Himself and the Apostles) used the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonical books.

There has NEVER been a 66-book canon in all of Christianity history until the Protestants invented it when they came onto the scene. Never. Ever.

You cannot find ANY canon ever matching the Protestant one in all of Christian history.

 

You can find the 66 canon books as being recognized and in use among earliest church by end of first century/into second century!
The truth is that the RCC had to get those other non inspired books included in order to get cover for their bad doctrines/dogmas!

 

You have it completely backwards. The Protestants REMOVED books from the Old Testament canon. Once again, there is NO canon in all of Christian history which consisted of 66 books until the Protestants invented theirs. NONE. NADA.

 

No formal as in written down and codified by any Council, but the 66 were already well recognized and quoted and used by ECF themselves!

 

No formal as in NEVER HAVING EXISTED in all of Christian history.

And the ECF, as well as our Blessed Lord and the Apostles themselves, also quoted from the seven books missing from your 66-book canon.

There has never been a 66-book canon in all of Christian history until the Protestants invented it. Never. Ever.

 

There were universally recognized and used by Christians those books way before RCC codied any bible list!

 

Bingo! Christians NEVER used a 66-book canon. That was invented by Protestants.

The Church has always had the same 73-book canon, declared at Carthage and Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants removes books from the canon, and affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

By contrast, there is no church in history which ever used the Protestant canon. None. Nada.

 

The 66 books were the ONLY ones ever inspired by the Holy Spirit....

 

Where is this belief found in Scripture or believed by ANYONE in Christian history prior to the Protestant invention of this belief?

Once again, there is NO CHURCH in all of Christian history which ever used a 66-book canon. NONE. NADA.

 

if we went back in time in second century, those would have been the ONLY copied books that were seen as inspired books, only authorized by God!

 

I present you with a time machine to the second century to witness an ECF who lived from 185 A.D. to roughly 254 A.D....

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12, in ANF, IV:615


[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19, in ANF,IV:551.


But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2,in ANF, IV:270


And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, "If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing " or "If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 4, in ANF, IX:427.


And as a general principle observe the expression "behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says "Do not walk behind thy lusts." (Sirach 18:30) And Elijah also in the third Book of Kings, says to the people "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him." (1 Kings 18:21) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 23 Origen, 22, in ANF, IX:463 AD 254


Let me know if you want more. Once again, there is NO CHURCH in all of Christian history which ever had a 66-book canon. NONE. NADA.

 

Doctrines are absolutely affected by modern per-"versions", for instance, they think that the have evidence in their 'Bibles' for their position that "the Lord's day" is Sunday, the "first [day] of the week", but when asked for evidence, do you know what they do?

See What they do here

See for yourself.

 

You ignore and avoid clear facts about the Waldensian Bibles. You fail to demonstrate or prove that the Old Latin agrees with the Textus Receptus in all its readings.

Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern translations, 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). Glenn 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