HAS GOD'S WORD BEEN PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES?

[JohnBaptistHenry]

Again these were the 6 translations listed in the King's instructions to the translators that were to be consulted: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

Wycliffe Bible was from Latin and was not used; Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation and was not used; and Taverner's was not used.

I did not say that there were not more translations, but that these 7 were authorized for use by King James.
"The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" (Ecclesiastes 8:4)

According to Psalm 119:89 the word of God is forever settled in heaven, but according to Psalm 12:6-7 there is a generation from which God's words has been purified seven times and preserve. I contend that that generation began with William Tyndale and culminated with the translation of the King James Bible. We know that the original languages and perhaps translations also are "forever settled in heaven," but the KJV has clearly been purified seven times and preserve.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. … Thy word is true from the beginning and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:89, 160)

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him" (Proverbs 30:5)

 

[Logos1560]

Again these were the 6 translations listed in the King's instructions to the translators that were to be consulted: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

Wycliffe Bible was from Latin and was not used; Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation and was not used; and Taverner's was not used.

You fail to prove your opinion to be true. There is plenty of sound documented evidence that the 1582 Rheims New Testament was used in the making of the KJV. One of the KJV translators themselves admitted it.

Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).

About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18).
Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30).

Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

 

[Logos1560]

Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation and was not used;

Charles Butterworth noted: "There are instances where the Rheims New Testament reads differently from all the preceding versions and yet has been followed later by similar readings in the King James Bible, indicating that the translators of 1611 by no means ignored the work that was done in 1582" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 195).

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule wrote: “This Rheims New Testament exerted a very considerable influence on the version of 1611, transmitting to it not only an extensive vocabulary, but also numerous distinctive phrases and turns of expression” (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions, p. 96). Darlow and Moule noted that “the Rheims New Testament, though not mentioned, contributed appreciably to the changes introduced” (p. 134).

David Daniell wrote: "Another, more serious, push toward Latinity came from the influence on the [KJV] panels of the extremely Latinate Roman Catholic translation from Rheims" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xiii). David Norton asserted that “Rheims’s prime contribution to the KJB was an added sprinkle of latinate vocabulary in the NT” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32).
John R. Kohlenberger III observed: “Although Bancroft did not list the Catholic Rheims (1582) translation of the New Testament as a resource to be used, and although Miles Smith does not cite it by name, the translators occasionally followed its readings” (Burke, Translation That Openeth the Window, p. 47).

J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303).

Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237).

In his 1808 answer to the reprinting of Ward’s 1688 book Errata of the Protestant Bible, Edward Ryan referred to the KJV translators “adopting the Romish Version in very many instances” and to their making corrections “agreeably to the popish construction“ (Analysis, pp. 5-6).
Benson Bobrick also observed; "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (Wide as the Waters, p. 244). Samuel Fisk also acknowledged that the Rheims had "an influence upon the King James Version" (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74).

James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Again these were the 6 translations listed in the King's instructions to the translators that were to be consulted: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Bishops Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation and was not used

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV obtain their Latin-based rendering "malefactors" at Luke 23:32 and Luke 23:39 or did they use the 1582 Rheims and get it from it?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "courtesy" at Acts 24:4 or did they borrow it from the 1582 Rheims?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "seduce" at Mark 13:22?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep the rendering "austere" at Luke 19:22?

Was the 1582 Rheims the source of the KJV's rendering "malignity" at Romans 1:29?

At 2 Corinthians 1:12, do those six English translations have "pureness" or does one of them have "sincerity" as in the 1582 Rheims and 1611 KJV?

 

[Yeshua1]

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV obtain their Latin-based rendering "malefactors" at Luke 23:32 and Luke 23:39 or did they use the 1582 Rheims and get it from it?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "courtesy" at Acts 24:4 or did they borrow it from the 1582 Rheims?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep their rendering "seduce" at Mark 13:22?

From which of those six English translations did the makers of the KJV keep the rendering "austere" at Luke 19:22?

Was the 1582 Rheims the source of the KJV's rendering "malignity" at Romans 1:29?

At 2 Corinthians 1:12, do those six English translations have "pureness" or does one of them have "sincerity" as in the 1582 Rheims and 1611 KJV?

The Kjv also at times pulled from Erasmus some renderings he took in from the latin Vulgate, correct? And that is an official catholic translation!

 

[TCassidy]

So the King's instructions said to use these prior translation:
1. Tyndale's
2. Coverdale's
3. Matthew's
4. Whitchurch's
5.Bishops Bible
6. Geneva.

Had you ever bothered to read the KJV which you seem to worship, and compare it to the prior translations you would note that on several occasions the KJV lifts the exactly wording from the Rheims Catholic Bible. So, the correct answer is "10" not "7."

 

[rlvaughn]

"The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit. ... These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible, viz. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. (Instructions #1 & #14; Note that the 6 prior translations were used, the KJV being the 7th.)

Between Tyndale's Bible and the 1611 KJV, there were more than five other English translations.

Yep. 7 times. Uh. Wait a minute. 10 times. Not 7. 10.

Eleven times --there were two "Wycliffe" Bibles.

While you guys are free to differ with John Henry's interpretation of the evidence -- as do I -- your statements reply to something different than what he is asserting, which is the six translations mentioned in the instructions to the translators.

The answer to the question, "Has God's word been purified seven times?" is: Into English, Absolutely! The process of translating God's word into the English language was a sevenfold purification process to get the right words. It was in no way like God's giving of the original "pure words" as specified in 2 Peter 1:21; but was more like the study to rightly divide the word of truth required by 2 Timothy 2:15. Nonetheless, we do believe that the LORD was superintending the work of translation and the final work is inspired.

This is purely pasting on top of the KJV something it does not say at all. The correct answer to the KJV being purified seven times is easily found within the KJV itself:

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

God's words always were, now are, and always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 in the KJV does not say that the English Bible will be "purified seven times." The words are pure, currently, at the time David is writing, not just waiting for some future refinement. The words already exist in purity in David's generation and will be preserved to and through future generations. If pure and preserved, why do they need this "seven-time refining"? "The words of the LORD are pure words: as..." "As" signals a figure of speech, a simile that compares the purity of the Lord's word to the purity of silver put through the refining furnace seven times (Cf. Zechariah 13:9). As no dross is in the seven-time refined silver, so there is no admixture -- nothing impure, nothing false -- in the pure words of the Lord.

As noted by Reynolds on the first page, the refining does not refer to God's Word -- which needs no refining -- it refers to silver.

 

[Aaron]

HAS GOD'S WORD BEEN PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES? (Part 1)
By John Henry
June 12, 2016

Scriptures:

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 119:89: "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

Psalm 119:140: "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."

Psalm 119:160: "Thy word is true from the beginning and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Proverbs 30:5: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him"

Introduction:

This is an answer to those who claim that Psalm 12:6-7 does not prophesy of a sevenfold purifying process of the English Bible that culminated in the King James Bible. It began with the work of William Tyndale, a Baptist, and is largely his work.

Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to OBSERVE all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I AM WITH YOU alway, even UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen."

Included in the great commission is the Lord's charge to "observe" all that He "commanded." I have heard it preached that "observe" here means to "do" which is NOT the primary emphasis for this word. Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "observe" as follows: "OBSERVE, v.t. obzerv'. Latin: observo; ob and servo, to KEEP or hold. The sense is to hold in view, or to keep the eyes on. ..." The Greek word for it is "tereo" (Strong's Greek #5083) which is also translated "preserved" and "hold fast" (1 Thess. 5:23; Jude 1; Rev. 3:3), but it is often translated "keep" in connection with God's people keeping His word (John 14:15, 21, 23-24, 15:10, 20, 17:6; 1 John 2:3-5, 3:22, 24, 5:2-3; Rev. 1:3, 3:8, 10, 12:17, 14:12, 22:7, 18-19). Earlier in Matthew 28 "tereo" is translated "keepers" where it says, "And for fear of him [an angel] the keepers [i.e. guards] did shake, and became as dead men" (Matt. 28:4). Therefore, the Lord's emphasis here is for His church to guard the word of God, and Jesus promises to be with His church "unto the end of the world" in this task.

It is therefore no strange thing that the Lord would use His church in preserving and translating His word during this Church Age. The New Testament was given in Koine Greek, the first universal language, and when Latin became dominant the Waldenses translated it into that language and others, and finally Tyndale began the first work on what came to be known as the King James Bible which was completed within a generation.

1 Timothy 3:15: "... thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (cf. John 17:17)

Jude 3: "... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH which was once delivered unto the saints." (cf. Rom. 3:3; Gal. 2:16, 20; Eph. 3:12, 4:5; Phil. 1:27, 3:9; Titus 1:1; Rev. 2:13, 13:10, 14:12; et. al.)

A number of things commend the KJV. You don't have to make stuff up.

 

[Logos1560]

; Rheims Bible was a Catholic translation and was not used; and Taverner's was not used.

While you guys are free to differ with John Henry's interpretation of the evidence -- as do I -- your statements reply to something different than what he is asserting, which is the six translations mentioned in the instructions to the translators.

He is claiming that no more than six prior English Bibles were used in the making of the 1611 KJV, and that is not factually true. We did not claim that there were more than six English Bibles listed in the instructions.

The rule for the making of the KJV did not point out that there were actually two different Geneva Bibles [the 1560 Geneva Bible and a later one (often identified as the 1599) with a different New Testament edited by Laurence Tomson, and the makers of the KJV likely made use of both of these two different English Bibles.

The evidence is clear that the makers of the KJV also made use of the 1582 Rheims New Testament even if it was not listed in the instructions and even though John Henry claimed that they did not.

 

[rlvaughn]

He is claiming that no more than six prior English Bibles were used in the making of the 1611 KJV, and that is not factually true.

On reviewing what John Henry wrote, I agree with you. He doesn't just say that is where he arrives at the number seven, but says that only those 6 were used for reference in translating the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

On reviewing what John Henry wrote, I agree with you. He doesn't just say that is where he arrives at the number seven, but says that only those 6 were used for reference in translating the KJV.

The statement of refining though only applies to the Originals anyways, and not any Bible translation....

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John of Japan:

"The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A. D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 AD (Scrivener's Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 43.) We are indebted to Theodore Beza, the renowned associate of John Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. From the illustrious group of scholars which gathered around Beza, 1590 AD, we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches. As the sixteenth century is closing, in Geneva Beza, Cyril Lucar, and later to become the head of the Greek Catholic Church, and Diodati, also a foremost scholar. As Beza astonishes and confounds the world by restoring manuscripts of that Greek New Testament from which the King James is translated, Diodati takes the same and translates into Italian a new and famous edition, adopted and circulated by the Waldenses. (McClintock & Strong Encycl., Art. "Waldenses.") Leger, the Waldensian historian of his people, studied under Diodati at Geneva. He returned as pastor to the Waldenses and led them in their flight from the terrible massacre of 1655. (Gilly, Researches, pp. 79, 80.) He prized as his choicest treasure the Diodati Bible, the only worldly possession he was able to preserve. Cyril Lucar hastened to Alexandria where Codex A, the Alexandrian Manuscript, is lying, and laid down his life to introduce the Reformation and the Reformers' pure light regarding the books of the Bible." (Source: http://textus-receptus.com)

The Waldenses were later branded as Anabaptists by the Roman Catholics.

Sorry, I don't buy this (and I teach church history at a Bible college). Unfortunately, I'm away from home and my resources. But I'll just say to you what I say to my students: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet! Example: the so-called "TR Japanese" version on that website is in classical Japanese, so it's probably not a new version, but apparently someone is just typing in a previous version (probably the Nagai translation).

And again, how do you know the "seven times purified" refers to the English Bible? Why can it not refer to the Japanese Bibles I listed (or Spanish, or Chinese, or..., or..., etc. etc.)?

 

[rsr]

Had you ever bothered to read the KJV which you seem to worship, and compare it to the prior translations you would note that on several occasions the KJV lifts the exactly wording from the Rheims Catholic Bible. So, the correct answer is "10" not "7."

Or many more. Tyndale revised his New Testament twice, and he did not translate most of the Old Testament. So does that mean that most of the OT missed out on being refined the first time?

Coverdale revised his Bible four times, and he edited seven editions of the Great Bible (which were not just reprints). (Except for Tyndale's work, the other books were not translated from the original languages but from sources as varied as Erasmus' polyglot, Luther, Zwingli and (according to at least one scholar) a Dutch version.

The Bishops' Bible went through three editions, each different.

The Geneva went through several editions; in addition to the 1560 and the 1599 (which are most familiar) there were substantial changes in other editions.

And, of course, the translators used the Vulgate and the Rheims NT, as Doc has pointed out. You really need a scorecard to keep track ...

 

[JohnBaptistHenry]

Hi again John of Japan,

A little more about what you said about our ancient Baptist ancestors, the Waldenses:

You said, "Um, no. The Waldenses weren't around yet at that point until the 12th century. Soon after the Ascension, unknown individuals began translating the Scriptures into Latin. Those versions are called the "Old Latin." Then in the second half of the 4th century, Jerome revised and retranslated, producing the Latin Vulgate Bible."

History proves:

Theodore Beza (1519 - 1605), date the Italic church back to 120 AD? (Which Bible?, p. 208)

In 1524 the Roman Catholic Cardinal Hosius admitted that Anabaptists date back to the days of Constintine? (Housius, Letters Apud Opera, pp.112 - 113 as quoted in Trail of Blood, p. 3, Ashland Av. Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, 1933) Hosius further stated, "The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been ..."? (Hosius, Works of the Heretics of our Times, Bk. I. 431. Ed. 1584 as quoted by John T. Christian).

In 1819 a study commissioned by the King of Holland determine that "... Baptists ... were originally Waldenses ... [who are] ... the only religious community which has continued from the times of the Apostles ..."? (The History of the Baptists by Thomas Armatage, p. 149)

You are right about Jerome, but he used Waldensian Bibles! On the order of the Pope he reluctantly removed readings from the Waldensian Bible to make it conform to Origen's Greek corruption. , https://www.baptistboard.com/members/john-of-japan.5820/

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only advocates often make incorrect or misleading claims about Waldensian Bibles.

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).

 

[TCassidy]

John Henry, it may behoove you to read up regarding the "Spiritual Kinship" position of William Kiffin. Doing so may clear up a lot of your confusion.

 

[McCree79]

Eleven times --there were two "Wycliffe" Bibles.

...and 2 Geneva Bibles

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[JohnBaptistHenry]

Hi Rippon, you said: "JBH, William Tyndale was not a Baptist."

For all practice purposes he certainly was. Here is some historical evidence from part of an article as to the fact:

"The word "Olchon" is Welsh for "baptism" or "washing." Olchon is on the Welsh border. It is situated in the County of Hereford. The ruins of the oldest Chapel stands on the banks of the swift flowing stream from which the narrow Valley of the Olchon takes its name. The Olchon Valley was an early center from which Baptist churches spread across South Wales. The valley provided a safe haven for dissenting Christians long before they adopted the name of Baptists. A most common feature of early Celtic Christians is wells, used by the missionaries for baptizing. This was certainly a distinctive feature among the missionaries in the neighboring small Welsh kingdoms of Brycheiniog and Eywas.

"The church in Olchon Valley is at Llanveynoe, towards the foot of the valley. The church is believed to have been founded by a missionary by the name of Bueno around 600 A.D. who had been given land in Eywas Valley by Kentigan, King of Caerwent. He later moved to North Wales leaving three disciples to continue his work in Olchon and died at Clynnog inthe Lleyn peninsula around 648.

"Joshua Thomas (1719-1797), who was Minister at Olchon from 1746-1754, in his book The American Baptist Heritage in Wales traces the American church toits roots in Olchon and details the existence of the ancient Christian enclave there citing evidence going back to the 6th century.

"Among the many other notable figures associated with Olchon is William Tyndale (1494-1536) who was born close to Olchon, though he grew up in Gloucestershire. The Tyndale family name is associated with the Olchon Valley. According to Davis in History of the Welsh Baptists, Llewellyn Tyndale and Hezekiah Tyndale were members of the Baptist church at nearby Abergaverney. Certainly in his writings Tyndale expresses Baptist views using Baptist terms, such as"elder" instead of "Bishop" and recognizes clergy by the offices of "pastor" and "deacon." He challenged clerical celibacy.

"William Tyndale was particularly eloquent in expressing the Biblical doctrine of baptism held by Baptist. He described the ordinance as "the sign of repentance ... and new birth." As Baptists do, he identified baptism primarily with repentance: "baptism is a sign of repentance signifying that I must repent of evil, and believe to be saved ... by the blood of Christ." Tyndale denied the necessity of baptism for adult salvation, and said that "the infants that die unbaptized of us Christians are in as good case as those that die baptized." He pointed out that the main function of baptism is that of "testifying and exhibiting to our senses the promises signified." William Tyndale believed that the Holy Spirit does not work in the water, but "accompanieth the preaching of faith, and with the word of faith, entereth the heart and purgeth it." Tyndale also described baptism as "dipping or plunging [not pouring or sprinkling] as the true sign." (Baptism, Bromiley, pp. 11, 25, 56, 149, 179, 192; Tyndale, British Reformers Series, p. 407; Tyndale, Parker Society Series, III, p. 171; Tyndale, Parker Society Series, I, pp. 350-351, 357, 423-424)

"In 1536 Tyndale was convicted of heresy by the pope for his Bible translation work. His last words were, "Lord open the king of England's eyes." Tyndale's prayer was fulfilled by two kings: Just 2 years later King Henry the VIII authorized the Great Bible and 75 years later King James authorize the Bible that bears his name.

"The King James Bible is the final translation, the 7th, that began with Tyndale's Bible, and is about 80% Tyndale's own work.

"The kings heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" (Ecclesiastes 8:4)

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

"The KJV is the 7th English Bible translation from the original tongues. It is the purification of William Tyndale's translation and is largely his work. The first 6 translations were consulted in it's translation as commanded by King James.

"1. William Tyndale - 1534/6
2. Myles Coverdale - 1535 (Student of Tyndale)
3. John Rodgers - 1537 (Rodgers used the pseudonym: Matthew)
4. Great Bible - 1539 (Coverdale revision)
5. Geneva Bible - 1557 (William Whittingham assisted by Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole)
6. Bishops' Bible - 1572 (Matthew Parker and other bishops)
7. King James Bible - 1611 (47 translators who were expert in the original languages.)

"What is clear from this is that within South Wales, centered in the valley of Olchon, was a long tradition of Baptist belief from at least the 7th century, and Lollard dissent from at least the 13th century onwards. Lollards had long propagated the idea of a community of "true Christians" distinct from the outward and corrupt form of the established church institution. The Olchon Valley has long been cited by Baptists as proof of continuity of Christ's local churches all the way back to Jesus Christ who established it."

http://history.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Olchon.html

 

[TCassidy]

...and 2 Geneva Bibles

3. NT in 1557. Whole Bible in 1560 with revised NT. Revision of 1599 which mostly changed marginal and end notes.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"The word "Olchon" is Welsh for "baptism" or "washing."

True, but it can also mean 'Sheep-dipping.'
I have done a lot of research into pre-Reformation Christians, and I would love to say that there is solid, verifiable evidence of credo-Baptists in Britain before 1500, but I have not been able to find any.

Certainly in his writings Tyndale expresses Baptist views using Baptist terms, such as "elder" instead of "Bishop" and recognizes clergy by the offices of "pastor" and "deacon." He challenged clerical celibacy.

It's just a shame he never mentions baptism, isn't it? I think it's entirely possible that Tyndale was converted under Lollards, but to claim him as a Baptist is a total stretch.