• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

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.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsr

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
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). .”

That is how they try to spin it, but it was the Italic or Itala..
"It is the branch of the Old Latin used in northern Italy that attracts our interest most, and establishes one of the crucial chapters in Bible transmissional history. This version, known as the Itala, is associated with the Christians of the Vaudois – the valleys of northern Italy and southern France. These noble believers withstood every attempt of Rome to "bring them into the fold." From the days of Pope Sylvester (early 300’s) unto the massacres of 1655, they were slaughtered, their names blackened and their records destroyed; yet they remained true to the Scriptures. They are known by a number of names, but best as the Waldensians. Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a lineal descendent of the Old Latin Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in the Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text." Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, A Closer Look! B.F.T. #1825 by Jack A. Moorman, The Bible for Today, 1990

The group of Christians branded as heretics by the Roman Church was the "Vaudois" who were so called from the alpine valleys in northern Italy where they lived and only later they became known as the Waldenses after Peter Waldo. The destruction of their records began around 600 under Pope Gregory I and per Beza, this Church was formed about 120 A.D.(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), Vol. IV, p. 970 (hereafter ISBE); F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, (Cambridge: n.p., 1896)

Its Latin Bible (the "Italic" or "Itala") which represents the Received Text (Syrian) was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D. It is recognized that Jerome's Vulgate is the "Itala" (the "Old Latin") with the readings of the Received Text removed. (Westcott and Hort, Introduction, op. cit., p. 152; Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., pp. 187-188, 972)

The leadership of the Reformation German, French and English was convinced that the Received Text (TR) was the genuine New Testament, "not only because of its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form had come down from the days of the apostles." (Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op. cit., p. 78.)

In producing his translation Luther referred to the Tepl ms which agreed with the "Old Latin" version that was anterior to Jerome. This Tepl ms represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German dialect which was spoken before the time of the Reformation. This undoubtedly was the reason the Roman Church reproved Luther for "following the Waldenses".(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, ed., (Chicago: The Howard- Severance Co., 1937), Vol. III, p. 1841.)
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Here is more on the Waldensians...
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. Allix’s “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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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....
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!
 

Walpole

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Alofa Atu

Well-Known Member
Since the beginning, there have been those who have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias.
Because they are predisposed to mans 'ideas' and 'interpretation', rather than the truth, their can be changes by unscrupulous men or those who do not fear God. This was the reason the Jews would not change the text, but do a word for word translation or manuscript, and this is not the case at the least for most of these 'modern' versions.

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm
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.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In producing his translation Luther referred to the Tepl ms which agreed with the "Old Latin" version that was anterior to Jerome. This Tepl ms represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German dialect which was spoken before the time of the Reformation. This undoubtedly was the reason the Roman Church reproved Luther for "following the Waldenses".(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, ed., (Chicago: The Howard- Severance Co., 1937), Vol. III, p. 1841.)

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top