Before The KJV

Especially considering that something like 90% of the NT is Tyndale's translation.

 

You will never get an answer to this question. I have asked it many many times. If they are honest, they will finnally admit that they don't know.

 

I have argued against the KJVO position for so long and expended so much energy doing so that I often get quite weary of the whole thing. It's nice to be reminded that sometimes an appeal to common sense is all that is required to find the right answer rather than endless historical/MSS proofs. Good job.

 

Every body knows that before the KJV it was the Latin vulgate for 12 centuries.

Latin was the language of inspiration according to the Church of Rome, so when the torch was past to the Church of England the language which God spoke had to change also.

HankD

 

I assume you were being ironic, but for lurkers I ask, what about all the English Bibles before the KJV?

 

n now, KJBOs have to ask themselves, is the torch still w QEII n her beloved "defender of all faiths"--OR has it passed on to someone else?

 

Ironic, tongue-in-cheek, etc...

"what about all the English Bibles before the KJV?"

I assume you mean; do the KJVO consider these Bibles to be the Word of God.

I have asked this question as well as many others here on the BB, but I don't remember ever getting a coherent answer to the following question:

If God has preserved His word in purity for each generation, what/where/which was the Word of God before 1611?

I have never seen a KJVO pronouncement upon the English pre-KJV Bibles (Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.)

Perhaps someone is willing to answer the question above now, (repeated so there is no confusion):

If God has preserved His word in purity for each generation, what/where/which was the Word of God before 1611?

We would all prefer a direct answer rather than an ad hominem or deflection.

HankD

 

According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

1.Hebrew.

2.Aramaic.

3.Greek.

4.Old Syriac.

5.Old Latin.

6.German.

7.English(translated in the Church age that "kept God's word).


And on the same token:

1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.

All of the English Bibles listed were translated in the Church age that "kept God's word."All of the 1881 on "bibles" were not.There is your "direct answer";believe it or not;take it or leave it;the ball is in your court.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

Anyone for eisegesis?

You gotta laugh.

 

I do,at you and those like you.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

I do,at you and those like you.

Yeah, it's easier than proving KJV-onlyism true. But then, so is flying to the moon by flapping your arms.

 

According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

1.Hebrew.

2.Aramaic.

3.Greek.

4.Old Syriac.

5.Old Latin.

6.German.

7.English(translated in the Church age that "kept God's word).


And on the same token:

1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.

All of the English Bibles listed were translated in the Church age that "kept God's word."All of the 1881 on "bibles" were not.There is your "direct answer";believe it or not;take it or leave it;the ball is in your court. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen brother! You answered the question as I believe has been answered before but as you have seen, there is no real answer for the modernist, for they are still looking for God's perfect word. They will ask this again so I will save this and repost when they report.

Proverbs 29:9  If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

 

(giggle)

 

Okay, I never can understand this purified seven times. Was the German Perfect? Does it match the KJV in every respect (because Luther's doesnt)? No wait, don't answer those questions. Just answer this one question.

In a YES or NO answer, please tell me, was
"Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D." perfect? Yes or no.

 

So Psalm 12:6-7 was a lie until 1611, eh?

In the Hebrew, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Aramaic, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Greek (which Greek? The LXX or something else? ), it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Old Syriac, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Old Latin, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the German, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the English prior to 1611, it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Great Bible-1542 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Geneva Bible-1560 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

In the Bishops Bible-1568 A.D., it said "purified" (past tense) but you say it wasn't, and therefore that scripture was wrong at that time.

Like I've said before, KJV-onlyism denies the very preservation prior to 1611, that it depends on after 1611. What is KJV-onlyism's "preservation" if the previous is not "preserved" but instead improved? It is a complete, unbiblical, illogical, self-contradicting farce!

 

To tell you the truth, I don't know. Maybe someone that has studied this can. My personal believe is that since "purified seven times" is refering to the Bible, the Tyndale in its time was perfect.

 

I have never had anyone adequately explain to me how you can come to that view from Psalms 12 without majorly reading into the text? That is a clear case of taking your own view and laying it upon the text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

 

So let me get this straight. The Tyndale and the KJV disagree at points, many times with the Tyndale following readings that agree with MVs. Yet it was still perfect. Perfection is relative to time. Whether or not a verse is included in the Bible is relative with time, since in Tyndale's perfect translation and verse is missing but in the KJVs perfect translation a verse is there. That is quite interesting.

 

From a previous message:

And on the same token:

1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.


Hmmmmmmmmm, this works only because you choose to ignore Wycliffe's english translation, which was the first translation of the Bible into english. Counting Wycliffe's, that would make the Bishop's Bible the 7th in the line, and therefore God's only true Word. =)
(This according to your own logic.)