Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
This is demonstratably untrue, as Doug Kutilek shows. The Waldensian Bible was a translation of the Latin Vulgate: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> After quoting Robert Robertson's remark about Peter Waldo's having "procured a translation of the four gospels from Latin into French" (Ecclesiastical Researches, 1792, pp.462-3), William Jones added: "The Latin Vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures at that time in Europe;

</font>[/QUOTE]The above statement has been shown to be incorrect on several points. First of all, the Waldenses existed long before Waldo, and were named for the valleys in which they lived, and not for Waldo. Secondly, the French translation of the bible was not done from the Latin, but from the Greek Byzantine text. The Latin the Waldenses used was the Old Latin, and not the Vulgate of Jerome.

Even the modern textual critics recognize the difference between the LV and the Italic or Old Latin Texts dating from the 2nd century. The Italic texts would include the Vercellensis of the 4th century and Curiensis, Veronensis, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Palatinus, Corbeiensis II, Claromontanus, Floriacensis, Vindobonensis, Bobiensis, Sangallensis, and Ambrosianus all of the 5th century.

The vulgate texts, from the 4th century are the Clementine and the Wordsworth-White editions.

The statement "The Latin Vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures at that time in Europe; . . ." is demonstratably untrue.

Be careful of Doug Kutilek's writings. He was fired from Baptist Bible College in Springfield, MO (not a KJVO school) due to his hetrodox position on inspiration. One of his more egregious statements was:

"God willed that His Church should enjoy the benefit of His written word, at once as a rule of doctrine and as a guide unto holy living. For this cause He so enlightened the minds of the Apostles and Evangelists by His Spirit, that they recorded what He had imprinted on their hearts or brought to their remembrance, without the risk of error in anything essential to the verity of the Gospel. But this main point once secured, the rest was left, in a great measure, to themselves."

He stated his belief that only those portions of the bible dealing with the verity of the Gospel could be said to be without error, and the rest of the bible, we are left on our own! That is a naturalistic as opposed to a supernaturalistic expression of bibliology. It is neo-orthodox, at best, and certaining not orthodox, in my opinioin.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Please cite the scripture to support this position.

Scott, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, your question is a straw man. Bible transmission is not a matter of faith/doctrine where we can point to a scripture to support our position. It is a matter of scholarship. To ask Brother Glen for scripture to support his position is as wrong as asking you for scripture which supports your text/version of choice. Please, let's keep the discussion on a reasonable level and not stoop to straw man argumentation.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Are you saying that doctrine that you consider to be sound determines what is or is not a good versions of scripture? I think that good doctrine comes from a Spirit guided study of a good Bible version.

Scott I certainly agree with your second sentence, but is it also not true that proper doctrine determines what is or is not a good version? Otherwise, how do we reject the NWT, for instance, or errors in the OT of the RSV which were not translated messianically?

A good translation must be translated confessionally as well as textually.

 

[tyndale1946]

Thomas Cassidy said:

The above statement has been shown to be incorrect on several points. First of all, the Waldenses existed long before Waldo, and were named for the valleys in which they lived, and not for Waldo. Secondly, the French translation of the bible was not done from the Latin, but from the Greek Byzantine text. The Latin the Waldenses used was the Old Latin, and not the Vulgate of Jerome.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say but couldn't find the words for. The Greek Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not they one in the same?... Brother Glen

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
The Greek Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not they one in the same?... Brother Glen

The TR is a representitive of the Byzantine textform, correct.

 

[tyndale1946]

Thomas cassidy said:

The Latin the Waldenses used was the Old Latin, and not the Vulgate of Jerome.

Since I'm not savy in science of textual criticism what was the difference between the two latins?... Brother Glen

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Please cite the scripture to support this position.

Scott, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, your question is a straw man. Bible transmission is not a matter of faith/doctrine where we can point to a scripture to support our position. It is a matter of scholarship. To ask Brother Glen for scripture to support his position is as wrong as asking you for scripture which supports your text/version of choice. Please, let's keep the discussion on a reasonable level and not stoop to straw man argumentation.</font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me Tyndale for not crossing every t and dotting every i... let me rephrase. What scriptural or scholarly reasons do you have for believing that only translations made prior to 1612 and in agreement with your particular doctrinal opinions are acceptable?

Dr. Cassidy, when someone dogmatically asserts that God only preserved His "inspired, infallible word up to and including the KJV", I don't believe it is a straw man whatsoever to ask them on what scriptural grounds they attribute this to God. Tyndale was not talking about transmission. He was talking about preservation and asserting that God's preservation of His Word in English ceased with the KJV. I simply asked why.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
The Greek Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus are not they one in the same?... Brother Glen

No. The TR and BT are not one in the same. The Greek used to produce the TR was from the BT family.

The last seven verses of Revelation were back translated from Erasmus' Latin Vulgate into Greek because he didn't have a ms with this section in it.

Also, Erasmus inserted the Trinity into I John 5:7-8 after receiving pressure from the RCC. The text was in the Vulgate but didn't have Greek support. Originally, Erasmus refused to include it but was persuaded later.

There may be other issues but these are the two I know of.

 

[3dmk]

This post seems to have made a turn in the opposite direction of its intended purpose. It is true, we all have more important things to do.

I will comment though on a couple things here.

1.) This does not always cause bad things. I would like to thank you guys for giving me yet another reason to dig into my Bible on an evening that I would normally spend writing code.

2.) I have recently moved to a new city. I left two very good churches behind. This means I am now looking for a good church to attend. My family and I have attended quite a few churches here, most have been KJV focused churches. A few used multiple versions. There is one thing that stood out in my mind.

In the KJV churches, I could open my bible, get into the Word, and be on the same page and get the same meaning the preacher was usually trying to speak on. By using one type of bible accross the whole congregation, it creates a type of standardization that allows people to focus more on what is being taught.

We attended another church, (Sunday School only actually.) that allowed the usage of multiple bibles. I have never been more confused durring a sunday school session in my life. There were 8 of us in the class. Each were reading in turn, a group of verses. The complete meaning of this class was lost, and we all knew it. I could tell what the KJV meant, to an extent. I could barely grasp the NKJV that was being read form. But when the poeple reading out of the NIV spoke up, it was like reading out of a different book and chapter. And I will not even try to think about the other verisons people were reading out of. It was so out of context that I just read the rest of the chapter and ignored what was going on arround me.

Afterwards, we asked what Bible the pastor teached out of. I cant remember which version, because I had never heard of it. We left after Sunday School and made it to a KJV church in time for morning services.

I deal with data standards at work all day long. When we try to mix different data types together, it causes so many issues. So, we strive for standardiztion. I look at churches the same way.

I hope you all find this somewhat useful in your day to day lives. I am by no means bashing anyone because they are using a different Bible. But when a church needs multiple bibles to establish doctrine, it is very funny. It is like they are hunting for scriptures that fit their own wants, needs, and likings. This is one of the reasons why I love my KJV. The book I started with, the book I will end with. Got to have stadards eh?

 

[ChristianCynic]

&lt; It is like they are hunting for scriptures that fit their own wants, needs, and likings. &gt;

Yeah, them KJV's sure is famous for that, ain't they?

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by 3dmk:
I could tell what the KJV meant, to an extent. I could barely grasp the NKJV that was being read form.

I don't mean to be rude, but let me get this straight ... you understand the KJV, but don't understand the NKJV?

 

[Pastor Larry]

A good message or lesson that is accurate will preach out of any good translation. I like to have people in my Adult Bible Fellowship class with different versions. And I routinely ask people with a different version to read it aloud.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I always enjoy hearing from alternate translations, and figuring out what common deep meaning might generate the alternate english words.

 

[DocCas]

I attended a Baptist church some time ago which used the NIV as its standard bible. The pastor had been doing a series of lessons on "What Makes Baptists Different?" All in all the message that evening was pretty good, except for one little problem. That evening the pastor was preaching on baptism, its meaning, mode, and what was required for a person to be baptized. As he preached from his notes he stated the requirement for baptism was that a person first be a true believer. That, if a person believed in Christ with all his heart, he could be baptized. He gave the reference to support this assertion as Acts 8:37, but did not turn to the verse nor did he read it from his pulpit bible, which was also an NIV. As I followed along in the NIV pew bible, I turned to that verse and found, uh, well, I found nothing! That pew copy of the NIV went from Acts 8:36 right to Acts 8:38! No Acts 8:37 to be found! I went home and checked my NIV study bible and sure enough, it was missing there too. I did notice a little d footnote, and there it was, at the bottom of the page, relegated to foot note status. So much for our Baptist distinctive of "Believers Baptism" if your standard bible is the NIV!

 

[Pastor Larry]

That's funny and sad all at the same time. It sounds to me like somebody didn't do their homework. Good thing we don't depend on Acts 8:37 for teaching believer's baptism.

 

[TomVols]

Right, Pastor Larry. Plus, as Thomas pointed out, it's not missing, it's just footnoted. Still, the pastor should've explained himself because others may have picked up on this and have the same question.

 

[3dmk]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
I don't mean to be rude, but let me get this straight ... you understand the KJV, but don't understand the NKJV?

Taken in context.

The complete meaning of this class was lost, and we all knew it. I could tell what the KJV meant, to an extent. I could barely grasp the NKJV that was being read form. But when the poeple reading out of the NIV spoke up, it was like reading out of a different book and chapter. And I will not even try to think about the other verisons people were reading out of.

When the guy has a message to speak on, he usually has verses that are there to reinforce the message. When the NKJV is phrased to mean something different, it makes it hard to understand what is being said or taught. It would be like me preaching on tithing, and then asking you to read Proverbs 28:28...

Now this is really cool...I must share, but it is a bit off topic. I made reference above to tithing, and when i jumped into my web based kjv that I keep in a set of folders on my laptop for easy reference when traceling or away from home, I must have went through at least 20 seperate versus in 4 different chapters and each one made reference to tithing. Oh what a wierd feeling that was...just wanted to share. I totally lost my train of thought...

 

[Pete Richert]

Good thing we don't depend on Acts 8:37 for teaching believer's baptism.

Could you list the versus we do depend on? I have been in constant contach with a Lutheran and this has been a matter of much discussion between us.

 

[TomVols]

Pete,
If you don't mind, would you start this thread on the theology forum? That would be more germane there.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by 3dmk:
When the guy has a message to speak on, he usually has verses that are there to reinforce the message. When the NKJV is phrased to mean something different, it makes it hard to understand what is being said or taught. It would be like me preaching on tithing, and then asking you to read Proverbs 28:28...

Can you list the verses, side by side, where the KJV means "something different" than the same verse in the NKJV?