Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
No. He didn'tdie
until 1769.
He left Jack Chick in charge
-
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!
is the king james the only right version?
- Thread starter brobobby
- Start date
until 1769.
He left Jack Chick in charge
Archangel7
New Member
Once again, fascinating -- two different versions of the same Spanish translation. To what "final authority" do we appeal when our "final authorities" disagree?
BTW, where did you get the copy of the Reina-Valera you are using? Is it readily available to any Spanish-speaking person?
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
No,NO NO!!.....I put the "gospel in English" to show what the Spanish words would be IN ENGLISH.....Translate the passage into English and you will see what I mean..
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Archangel7
New Member
Yes I would say two different versions are present here...The one that you are trying to prove the 1585 wrong is not an 1585-or 1602-Valera.. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know this? Do you have "the original" of the Reina-Valera Spanish Bible translation?
This LINK will help you find the true Spanish Bible of the reformation. </font>[/QUOTE]One section of the website's article "Which Spanish Bible is Correct?" is *very* revealing:
The original 1602 Valera was produced in Europe during the Protestant reformation by a Spanish street-preaching Protestant named Cipriano de Valera in the year 1602. Its outstanding representative today is the Valera1865, which was also produced primarily in Spain by a Spaniard named Angel de Mora. The two Bibles are essentially the same Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Changes were made in the New Testament to line the Valera up with the King James Bible in regards to some readings and some translation problems. But of all modern Bibles with the name Valera on it, the Valera1865 is by far the closest to the original 1602 Valera. And it is not really modern, having been produced before 1881 and before Tischendorf's discoveries could have any influence over its production....
...The outstanding representative of the original 1602 Valera is the Valera1865, just as the 1769 Cambridge is the outstanding representative of the AV1611. Every attempt should be made to defend every word found in the Valera1865. The Valera1865 is the correct Spanish text!
So it would appear that the so-called "1602 Valera" being pushed by this website is *not* the *real* 1602 Valera, but an 1865 *revision* of the 1602 Valera (the "Mora 1865") which changed the text of the *real* 1602 Valera to harmonize it with the KJV. And it would appear that the text of the *real* 1602 Reina-Valera is the one found at the Bible Gateway website (LINK) -- and it *differs* from the KJV in verses like Mk. 1:2 and Rom. 1:16.
The questions remain: what do you do when the KJV and the 1602 Reina-Valera disagree? To what "final authority" do you turn when your "final authorities" disagree?
Archangel7
New Member
I'm still interested in seeing an answer to my questions.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Well,seeing that I speak English,I would think the answer is obvious;the 1602 Valera was "revised" in 1865,big deal...The 1865 is the oustanding representative of the Byzantine texts in Spanish..
It was done before the monster of Alexandrian rationalism,and relativism of W&H,Tischendorf,et al,crept in.
Archangel7
New Member
Well,seeing that I speak English,I would think the answer is obvious;the 1602 Valera was "revised" in 1865,big deal...The 1865 is the oustanding representative of the Byzantine texts in Spanish..
It was done before the monster of Alexandrian rationalism,and relativism of W&H,Tischendorf,et al,crept in. </font>[/QUOTE]This just keeps getting more and more interesting. The website from Dr. Thomas Holland (who happens to be a very articulate proponent of the King James Version) gives a complete capsule history of the Spanish Reina-Valera translation ( LINK) Some of his more interesting comments are below:
1602
The entire Reina Version of the Bible is revised by Cipriano de Valera and is published. Changes were made to agree more closely with the Greek Textus Receptus and the language was revised as well. The Apocrypha was removed from the Old Testament and placed between the two Testaments to agree with most Protestant Bibles of that day. Valera also added a note, as the Geneva Bible did, stating the historical importance of the Apocrypha and yet denying its inspiration. The phrases which were left out of the 1569 edition by Reina were placed back into the text by Valera. However, in Romans 1:16 the phrase "of Christ" was omitted.
.......
1865
A new revision of the Valera by the American Bible Society (ABS). Dr. Angel H. de Mora and Dr. H. B. Pratt (an American Presbyterian missionary in Bogota) worked on this major revision. Dr. Pratt made most of the textual changes based on the then recent discoveries of Codies Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by Dr. Constantin Tischendorf. Thus, of all the revisions of the Valera to this date, this one had more changes in its textual base. There were about 100,000 changes made regarding orthography and calligraphy, and about 60,000 changes made in wording. The work began in 1861 and was finished in 1865. It is because of this major revision that the need for a Valera which reflected the traditional text arose. The movement to restore the Valera to its former textual roots occurred in the 1909 edition.
.......
1909
A revision of the whole Bible. This edition was made by the BFBS and the ABS. The revision was made by Dr. Victoriano D. Baez, Dr. Carlos W. Dress, Dr. Enriue C. Thomson, Dr. Juan Howland, and Dr. Francisco Diez. Various Latin American nations were represented by this committee: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Chile, and Argentina. This revision made changes to the 1865 edition to make it agree more closely with the Greek Textus Receptus. This made the 1909 edition of the Valera the closest to the King James Bible since its production in 1602. According to Dr. Eugene Nida of the ABS, this edition of the Valera was produced out of concern over the revisions which had occurred between the years 1865 and 1899 ("Reina-Valera Spanish Revision of 1960," The Bible Translator [New York: ABS, Vol. 13, No 1, Jan. 1962], p. 113). Not all of the textual changes made by the 1865 edition were changed. For example, in Mark 1:2 the phrase of the Textus Receptus, "the prophets," still reads as the 1865 edition, "Isaiah the Prophet."
.......
There are, nevertheless, some differences between the KJV and the Valera which are clearly textual. Most are due to the 1865 edition of the Valera which made massive changes to the text which the 1909 edition tried to correct. Others are due to the variant readings found in the majority text. The ensuing list provides some examples of such.
Passage KJV Valera
Matt. 15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" omitted
Matt. 24:2 "Jesus" omitted
Matt. 28:2 "from the door" omitted
Mark 1:2 "in the prophets" "Isaias el profeta"
Mark 2:17 "to repentance" omitted
Mark 9:24 "Lord" omitted
Mark 11:10 "in the name of the Lord" omitted
Luke 4:41 "Christ" omitted
Luke 11:29 "the prophet" omitted
Luke 23:42 "Lord" omitted
Acts 7:30 "of the Lord" omitted
Acts 20:28 "God" "Senor"
Rom. 1:16 "of Christ" omitted
1 Cor. 9:1 "Christ" omitted
2 Cor. 4:10 "the Lord" omitted
Eph. 3:9 "by Jesus Christ" omitted
2 Thess. 2:2 "Christ" "dia del Senor"
1 John 3:16 "of God" omitted
In other words, the 1865 Reina-Valera is *not* "the oustanding representative of the Byzantine texts in Spanish" as you claim, but rather a revision of the 1602 Reina-Valera based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It's the 1909 Reina-Valera that attempts to restore the Spanish text to the same base text as the KJV, and it differs from the KJV in numerous places.
My question still stands: if I speak both English and Spanish, and my two "final authorities" (the KJV and the Reina-Valera) disagree, to what "final authority" do I turn to resolve the disagreement?
HeLeft9941
New Member
I think maybe you guys are missing the point here... We are allowed our differing views and have been asked to not attack either side. The Bible calls us to speak in love. If you remember correctly, it's "Speak the truth in love." We don't know for sure which is the truth. We only have our opinions. Remember also that there is a verse that says, "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men." Is this really something worth aruging over?
Personally, I don't believe that KJV is the ONLY on out there. After all, it too was translated by men. I believe that we need to reach the people where they are and if having a Bible that is more readable for them, hey, at least they're reading it, right? I use the KJV, NIV, NLT, the Message... I'll use just about anything. I love to cross reference them. I don't know how many of you have read the Purpose Driven Life but Rick Warren makes a powerful point. He uses different translations to offer a new treatment. We are given vaccinations to avoid getting sick. The same thing over and over again so that when the illness hits us, our bodies can fit it off. The same can be true of Biblical translations in my opinion. If we read always read the same verse in the same translation we can become immune to its meaning. If we read it in a different translation, it can provide new understanding. That is my opinion. Those of you who believe that KJV is the only way, that's okay too. As long as we're reading the Bible, I don't really see what the big deal is.
Let's remember to speak with love. It frustrates me to see people fighting over something that we're aren't really going to know about until we reach eternity.
Love in Christ,
Me
Personally, I don't believe that KJV is the ONLY on out there. After all, it too was translated by men. I believe that we need to reach the people where they are and if having a Bible that is more readable for them, hey, at least they're reading it, right? I use the KJV, NIV, NLT, the Message... I'll use just about anything. I love to cross reference them. I don't know how many of you have read the Purpose Driven Life but Rick Warren makes a powerful point. He uses different translations to offer a new treatment. We are given vaccinations to avoid getting sick. The same thing over and over again so that when the illness hits us, our bodies can fit it off. The same can be true of Biblical translations in my opinion. If we read always read the same verse in the same translation we can become immune to its meaning. If we read it in a different translation, it can provide new understanding. That is my opinion. Those of you who believe that KJV is the only way, that's okay too. As long as we're reading the Bible, I don't really see what the big deal is.
Let's remember to speak with love. It frustrates me to see people fighting over something that we're aren't really going to know about until we reach eternity.
Love in Christ,
Me
Noble thoughts, HeLeft, but the reality of the situation is that certain English-users are spreading the doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, a doctrine which is totally man-made and false, as you know. As Christians, we have a DUTY to combat this & all other known false doctrines that attack our religion. If we just sit silently by, do you REALLY believe the KJVOs would do the same? I sure don't! Therefore, we MUST keep showing other Christians, Baptists in particular, that the KJVO myth is nothing but a man-made false doctrine, using whatever means God allows us to use.
Yes, it would be great if there were no false doctrines...
Yes, it would be great if there were no false doctrines...
Archangel7
New Member
Still waiting for an answer: if I speak both English and Spanish, and my two "final authorities" (the KJV and the Reina-Valera) disagree, to what "final authority" do I turn to resolve the disagreement?
Hey, Arch:
I'm gonna hafta start callin' ya "Mr Thread-Ender"! Seems as if you ask the KJVOs certain questions which they opt outta answering. Then & there the thread ends, as there's nothing left for US to say!
Hope ya got a big stable, as you "get their goats" quite often!
I'm gonna hafta start callin' ya "Mr Thread-Ender"! Seems as if you ask the KJVOs certain questions which they opt outta answering. Then & there the thread ends, as there's nothing left for US to say!
Hope ya got a big stable, as you "get their goats" quite often!
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
--------------------------------------------------
He's exactly right. If a preacher's preaching KJVO stuff, he's gotten it from a comic book and not any BIBLE.
--------------------------------------------------
robycop,
I am curious to know what you define as the responsibility and service a Pastor is to have over and for the church?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
He's exactly right. If a preacher's preaching KJVO stuff, he's gotten it from a comic book and not any BIBLE.
--------------------------------------------------
robycop,
I am curious to know what you define as the responsibility and service a Pastor is to have over and for the church?
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle:robycop,
I am curious to know what you define as the responsibility and service a Pastor is to have over and for the church?
The true definition of pastor is SHEPHERD. First, he must be called by God to be a pastor.(The office is NOT hereditary!)He is to LEAD his congregation in all things spiritual, including performing baptisms, leading the Communion services. The pastor is supposed to spiritually feed the "flock" God has placed under his leadership. He is to TEACH from the Scriptures. He is to FIGHT FALSE DOCTRINES(such as KJVO). He is to lead the "flock" in seeking to bring the lost to Christ. He is to lead an exemplary life, being the earthly example for his flock. He is to exhort against sin. He is to visit those sick, shut-in, or in jail.
He is to be the earthly head of his church while fully submitting to the final authority of JESUS CHRIST and His word, the Bible. God expects a LOT from those He calls to be pastors, but have you ever noticed how PERFECTLY CONTENT & HAPPY a dedicated, devout true pastor generally is? To this man, working for God is a JOY, not a chore!
Unlike most KJVOs, Michelle, you see I'll answer most any reasonable question. Now, care to tell us how an older ms can "omit" material found in later mss, which, of course, didn't exist at the time?(That's why they're called "newer"!)
And where did the "added" material in the "newer" mss come from?
I am curious to know what you define as the responsibility and service a Pastor is to have over and for the church?
The true definition of pastor is SHEPHERD. First, he must be called by God to be a pastor.(The office is NOT hereditary!)He is to LEAD his congregation in all things spiritual, including performing baptisms, leading the Communion services. The pastor is supposed to spiritually feed the "flock" God has placed under his leadership. He is to TEACH from the Scriptures. He is to FIGHT FALSE DOCTRINES(such as KJVO). He is to lead the "flock" in seeking to bring the lost to Christ. He is to lead an exemplary life, being the earthly example for his flock. He is to exhort against sin. He is to visit those sick, shut-in, or in jail.
He is to be the earthly head of his church while fully submitting to the final authority of JESUS CHRIST and His word, the Bible. God expects a LOT from those He calls to be pastors, but have you ever noticed how PERFECTLY CONTENT & HAPPY a dedicated, devout true pastor generally is? To this man, working for God is a JOY, not a chore!
Unlike most KJVOs, Michelle, you see I'll answer most any reasonable question. Now, care to tell us how an older ms can "omit" material found in later mss, which, of course, didn't exist at the time?(That's why they're called "newer"!)
And where did the "added" material in the "newer" mss come from?
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
robycop,
Thank you for answering my question. Now please undertand this, omittions to Gods word of truth is indeed reason for a Pastor to be concerned for his flock, and therefore warn them of this. This is not only loving and in care and concern for the sheep, but for his love and trust in every word of God for the believer and his life.
This is what Pastors are doing, and this falls into line with their responsibity, as you so wonderfully explained. The implication was that these men should not be teaching/warning their flocks regarding this issue. That is your opinion, based upon the label you have placed on those who reject the modern versions because of the facts and the evidence concerning this issue, and obeying God and the scriptures, to separate from such.
I have already answered your question many times, but many just choose to either ignore it, or twist the truth because they do not see it that way, and instead replying and rejecting the truth by asking questions, instead of answering the questions posed. It is evident to me, that even those here claim they believe that God would preserve his words as he promised, they really don't believe this at all. I have nothing more to say, than I have already said on this matter.
May the Lord continue to richly bless you all.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
robycop,
Thank you for answering my question. Now please undertand this, omittions to Gods word of truth is indeed reason for a Pastor to be concerned for his flock, and therefore warn them of this. This is not only loving and in care and concern for the sheep, but for his love and trust in every word of God for the believer and his life.
This is what Pastors are doing, and this falls into line with their responsibity, as you so wonderfully explained. The implication was that these men should not be teaching/warning their flocks regarding this issue. That is your opinion, based upon the label you have placed on those who reject the modern versions because of the facts and the evidence concerning this issue, and obeying God and the scriptures, to separate from such.
I have already answered your question many times, but many just choose to either ignore it, or twist the truth because they do not see it that way, and instead replying and rejecting the truth by asking questions, instead of answering the questions posed. It is evident to me, that even those here claim they believe that God would preserve his words as he promised, they really don't believe this at all. I have nothing more to say, than I have already said on this matter.
May the Lord continue to richly bless you all.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Yes I would say two different versions are present here...The one that you are trying to prove the 1585 wrong is not an 1585-or 1602-Valera..
This LINK will help you find the true Spanish Bible of the reformation. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's use the same argument on the KJV. It appears if what you say about the Spanish Bible is true then we ought to be reading the "true English Bible of the reformation" or the 1611 version.
If it works for the Spanish, why not the English?
Hi Michelle,
Glad to see you here. Its been lonely arguing with Dr. Bob and Skan, they go so far over my head that I try to argue with my wife and she's in too good of a mood, so I try to argue with my dog (I bring him to work almost every day), but he's not "biting". (You can see him right on the front of www.fallcare.com -- who can argue with him.)
Anyway, just kidding, have a good day! Maybe I just sit back and watch you and Robycop for a while.
Have a good Sunday!