Which of the MANY TR greek texts should we be using to translate off from then?
-
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!
Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
- Status
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, the overused, and invalid, missing verses argument.
Here is how the NIV renders that verse. “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Both translations saying same thing here it would seem!
Hobie
Well-Known Member
Acts 8:36-38 New International Version (NIV)
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [a] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Again, the verse is NOT missing. Here is how it is rendered:
“If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Please at least be honest in your attacks.
hard for those in a cult to do that!
If a verse is absent in the main text of a translation but present only in a footnote, is it not clear that the verse indeed *was* "missing" in the manuscripts and specific critical texts upon which those translations were based?
If there's going to be honesty, then let's have full honesty on the point.
If there's going to be honesty, then let's have full honesty on the point.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
The proof is in the pudding, all the versions based on Westcott and Hort are missing it...
Acts 8:36-38 New International Version (NIV)
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [a] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
36 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?”[a] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38 American Standard Version (ASV)
36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?[a] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV)
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
They tried to get away with it by putting in the footnote to take it out complete later, but they were unable to continue as many saw their intent and purpose and they were exposed.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
My bad, seems like they are even taking out the footnotes now...https://www.born-again-christian.info/review-2011-niv-problems-omissions-footnotes-conclusion.htm
Hobie
Well-Known Member
Many as they compare are beginning to understand their true intent and purpose...
"In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God’s Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:
In John 1:27 the words “is preferred before me” are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life” is changed to read: “he who believes has everlasting life” (NIV) The words “on me” are left out [footnote 1] .
John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God “the Father instead of “my Father,” as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).
Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words “for us” are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily “for us” (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn’t surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words “by Himself” from the phrase: “When He had by Himself purged our sins.” There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause “through His blood” is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ’s blood for redemption.
Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words “Joseph and his mother” are changed to read: “The child’s father and mother,” implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.
In Luke 24:51 the words “And carried up into heaven,” referring to our Lord’s ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words “because I go to the Father” are omitted....
SERIOUS QUESTIONS
Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God’s Word, we want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith....."..https://www.helpersofyourjoy.com/your-bible/
"In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God’s Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:
In John 1:27 the words “is preferred before me” are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life” is changed to read: “he who believes has everlasting life” (NIV) The words “on me” are left out [footnote 1] .
John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God “the Father instead of “my Father,” as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,” referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).
Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words “for us” are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily “for us” (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn’t surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words “by Himself” from the phrase: “When He had by Himself purged our sins.” There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause “through His blood” is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ’s blood for redemption.
Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words “Joseph and his mother” are changed to read: “The child’s father and mother,” implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.
In Luke 24:51 the words “And carried up into heaven,” referring to our Lord’s ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words “because I go to the Father” are omitted....
SERIOUS QUESTIONS
Because of the subtle nature of the deception used to corrupt God’s Word, we want to offer three examples of the absolute devastation caused by these new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only a minor irritant the numerous passages which are altered so as to eliminate or dilute statements on the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those recommending the modern versions, we ask our readers to consider the impact of these three passages on their faith....."..https://www.helpersofyourjoy.com/your-bible/
Hobie, I'm going to take a look at your reference of Luke 2:33 where you claim saying, "the child's father and mother" denies the Virgin birth.
Two things:
[1] Skip down 8 verses in the King James to verse 41. It says, "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." How is this any different than what you are complaining of?
- "the child's father and mother" [Modern Versions - verse 33] or "the child's parents" [King James Version - verse 41]. I don't see the difference.
- Perhaps you should study these things instead of consuming what someone else - a faulty human being - has said.
Hobie, you will not convince anyone here that the King James is the ONLY Bible to be trusted.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
That wasn't mine, the link is at the bottom. But my intent is not to "not convince anyone here that the King James is the ONLY Bible to be trusted", as you say. But to have everyone look at the versions based on what clearly are Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts that clearly have deletions and changes affecting Christian doctrine, and decide for themselves.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
And you have yet to show a doctrine they change because they don't. Instead, you put forth falsehoods about translations that have been debunked repeatedly, then you double down. It's exhausting.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
As the proverbial saying goes, 'A man convinced against his will...." Everyone must personally and prayerfully look at this issue and decide for themselves.
The Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which is placed on the KJV-only view's line of claimed corrupt Bibles.
The Wycliffe Bible has many textual differences when compared to the Geneva Bible or the KJV. Some readings from the Latin Vulgate were added by Erasmus to his edited Greek NT text.
Are you unaware of the fact that there are actual significant textual differences including some involving whole verses in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV?
Are you unaware of the fact that several editions of the Textus Receptus and several pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33?
Are you in effect accusing several editions of the Textus Receptus of being corrupt at Luke 2:33 and many of the Greek NT manuscripts on which the TR editions were based of being corrupt?
Several of the early Bibles on the KJV-only view's pure stream of Bibles have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'.
The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Erasmus' Greek edition of the TR had the Greek word for "father" at Luke 2:33. Concerning Luke 2:33, Jan Krans translated Erasmus as stating the following: “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (Beyond What is Written, p. 44, footnote 65).
The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].
You can only claim that there were additions and deletions since you hold to the TR being the "only real source text"
How can you be sure that the TR itself was more accurate to the originals?
Hobie
Well-Known Member
Well, I was studying the line and read how the Waldensians teachings came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church and declared heretical and subject to intense persecution; and one of the reason was their Bibles.
They were known as the Waldenses, or Vaudois, and concerning their antiquity and origin, Alexis Muston in his history on them, says:
"The Vaudois of the Alps are, in my opinion, primitive Christians, or descendants and representatives of the primitive church, preserved in these valleys from the corruptions successively introduced by the Church of Rome into the religion of the gospel. It is not they who have separated from Catholicism, but Catholicism which has separated from them by changing the primitive religion." History of the Waldenses, Vol. I, p. 17, 1875.
The noted Waldensian authority, William S. Gilly, M. A. states the same essential fact in these words:
"The terms, Vaudois in French, Vallenses in Latin, Valdesi, or Vallesi in Italian, and Waldenses in English ecclesiastical history, signify nothing more or less than Men of the Valleys; and as the valleys of Piedmont have had the honor of producing a race of people, who have remained true to the faith introduced by the first missionaries, who preached Christianity in those regions, the synonyms Vaudois, Valdesi, and Waldenses, have been adopted as the distinguishing names of a religious community, faithful to the primitive creed, and free from the corruption of the Church of Rome.
Long before the Roman Church, (that new sect, as Claude, Bishop of Turin in 840, called it,) stretched forth its arms, to stifle in its Antæan embrace the independent flocks of the Great Shepherd, the ancestors of the Waldenses were worshiping God in the hill countries of Piedmont, as their posterity now worship Him. For many ages they continued almost unnoticed." Waldensian Researches During a Second Visit to the Vaudois of Piemont, p. 6. London: Printed for C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1831.
Speaking further of these relationships, he adds:
The Waldenses of Piemont are not to be regarded as the successors of certain reformers, who first started up in France and Italy at a time, when the corruptions of the Roman Church and priesthood became intolerable, but as a race of simple mountaineers, who from generation to generation have continued steadily in the faith preached to their forefathers, when the territory, of which their valleys form a part, was first Christianized. Ample proof will be given of this, as I proceed, and without attempting to fix the exact period of their conversion, I trust to be able to establish the fact, that this Alpine tribe embraced the gospel as it was first announced in all its purity, and continued true to it, in the midst of almost general apostasy. Nothing is more to be regretted than the mistakes which have been made upon this point, even by Protestant authors.
The country in which we find the earliest of these protesters is Italy. The See of Rome, in those days, embraced only the capital and the surrounding provinces. The diocese of Milan, which included the plain of Lombardy, the Alps of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France, greatly exceeded it in extent. It is an undoubted historical fact that this powerful diocese was not then tributary to the papal chair...
Withstood Rome a Thousand Years
But the bishops in the region of Piedmont and the adjoining provinces did more than decline to go to Rome for ordination.
In the year 590, the bishops of Italy and the Grisons (Switzerland) to the number of nine, rejected the communion of the pope, as a heretic. Dr. Allixs Remarks on the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, chap. 5, p. 32, quoted in The History of the Christian Church, William Jones, chap. 4, sec. 1, p. 244.
About a century later, Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileia, in Italy, stood firmly against the domination and the innovations of the papacy, and was joined by other bishops in condemning the worship of images as idolatrous.
Turin, an important city a short distance to the west of Milan, was the center of an important diocese at the beginning of the ninth century. About the year 817 A. D. Claudius was appointed Archbishop of Turin, by Emperor Louis. Of him we read:
This man beheld with dismay the stealthy approaches of a power which, putting out the eyes of men, bowed their necks to its yoke, and bent their knees to idols. He grasped the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and the battle which he so courageously waged, delayed, though it could not prevent, the fall of his churchs independence, and for two centuries longer the light continued to shine at the foot of the Alps. The History of Protestantism, J. A. Wiley, Vol. I, p. 21.
This is all supported by Lawrence, the learned essayist, who writes:
Here, within the borders of Italy itself, the popes have never been able, except for one unhappy interval, to enforce their authority. Here no Mass has been said, no images adored, no papal rites administered by the native Vaudois. It was here that Henry Arnaud, the hero of the valleys, redeemed his country from the tyranny of the Jesuits and Rome; and here a Christian church, founded perhaps in the apostolic age, has survived the persecutions of a thousand years. Historical Studies, Eugene Lawrence, p. 199.
Soon after the dawn of Christianity, they assert, their ancestors embraced the faith of St. Paul..."
"The Scriptures became their only guide; the same belief, the same sacraments they maintain today they held in the age of Constantine and Sylvester. They relate that, as the Romish Church grew in power and pride, their ancestors repelled its assumptions and refused to submit to its authority; that when, in the ninth century, the use of images was enforced by superstitious popes, they, at least, never consented to become idolaters; that they never worshiped the Virgin, nor bowed at an idolatrous Mass. When, in the eleventh century, Rome asserted its supremacy over kings and princes, the Vaudois were its bitterest foes. The three valleys formed the theological school of Europe. The Vaudois missionaries traveled into Hungary and Bohemia, France, England, even Scotland, and aroused the people to a sense of the fearful corruption of the church. They pointed to Rome as the Antichrist, the center of every abomination. They taught, in the place of Romish innovations, the pure faith of the apostolic age. Lollard, who led the way to the reforms of Wycliffe, was a preacher from the valleys; the Albigenses of Provence, in the twelfth century, were the fruits of the Vaudois missions; Germany and Bohemia were reformed by the teachers of Piedmont; Huss and Jerome did little more than proclaim the Vaudois faith; and Luther and Calvin were only the necessary offspring of the apostolic churches of the Alps. The Advocate, 200, 201."
Hobie
Well-Known Member
Now, interestingly the Waldensians held and preached a number of truths as they read from the Bible. These included:
1.The atoning death and justifying righteousness of Christ
2.The Godhead
3.The fall of man
4.The incarnation of the Son
5.A denial of purgatory as the "invention of the Antichrist"
6.Valued voluntary poverty
They held that temporal offices and dignities were not meant for preachers of the Gospel; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to one knew not whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one's purse; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken of the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of the apocalypse.
Sounds almost like Reformers, but there is more as they also kept the text of the early church which they held and passed to the Protestant Reformers, which was then passed on to the Bibles the Reformers used and began to translate. Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.
These versions include: The Pesh*tta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Masoretic Text
1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
THE NEW TESTAMENT
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Pesh*tta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)
Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) , and was translated into a old Latin version before Jerome's Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.
The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the this text.
1.The atoning death and justifying righteousness of Christ
2.The Godhead
3.The fall of man
4.The incarnation of the Son
5.A denial of purgatory as the "invention of the Antichrist"
6.Valued voluntary poverty
They held that temporal offices and dignities were not meant for preachers of the Gospel; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to one knew not whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one's purse; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken of the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of the apocalypse.
Sounds almost like Reformers, but there is more as they also kept the text of the early church which they held and passed to the Protestant Reformers, which was then passed on to the Bibles the Reformers used and began to translate. Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.
These versions include: The Pesh*tta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Masoretic Text
1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
THE NEW TESTAMENT
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Pesh*tta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)
Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) , and was translated into a old Latin version before Jerome's Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.
The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the this text.
- Status