Stratton7
Member
Spinning in circles.
-
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!
- Status
Allen's Translating for King James is available at Archive.org. What purports to represent the original Rheims NT can be found online HERE (unfortunately, does not seem to have the marginal notes).
Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? They share the word “voluntary.” Are there other places where Allen shows the rendering was borrowed from the Rheims?
Just accept and admit that the Kjv is not perfect!
YOU'RE trying to spin in a square. Passover isn't Easter; Easter's not passover. We'll just hafta agree to disagree on that. But here's ya another one to ponder: The KJV ADDED the words "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. All you need do to "win" that'n is to show us a manuscript(not just the Textus Receptus) used to make the KJV that has those words in that verse.
And explain how and why some words came over from the Latin Vulgate!
37818
Well-Known Member
Do you accept the fact that most modern versions over all are worse than what is fixed from the KJV?
No, as think that they are superior to it in some regards!
The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible.
The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
See, The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible.
The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
It is said the Butterworth's assessment is contra Carleton, that the Rheims influence is much smaller than posited by Carleton. However, I have not read either of them. Butterworth is HERE.
Last edited:
Perhaps you show that you try to misrepresent and distort what was stated. I did not claim that marginal notes of the Geneva Bible do not count or do not provide information.
I just acknowledged the truth that the marginal notes are not part of the text, and I had made an accurate statement concerning the text of the Geneva Bible. You incorrectly tried to claim that my accurate statement concerning the text of the 1560 Geneva Bible was supposedly wrong because of something stated in a marginal note. You failed to prove that there was anything wrong with my accurate statement concerning the text of the Geneva Bible.
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).
Stratton7
Member
You can take a look at the info provided at this link:
Beza and Revelation 16:5 - King James Version Today
What is your goal in pointing this out? To have me come to a point where I doubt that God is incapable of preserving His Words in a Bible? I’m certainly not here to “win” as you’ve stated but you may be, I’m just sharing what I believe to be the truth.
Stratton7
Member
Would my admittance grant you solace? I believe God perfectly preserved His words for us in the KJB.
Can you say the same?
Stratton7
Member
The reason for it in context comes down to covetousness.
“We must be careful not to think that 1 Timothy 6:10 is condemning money itself. The condemnation is against the "love" of money. Hence misguided are the criticisms that money did not exist during Lucifer or Adam's time or that money does not cause certain evils. It is the "love of money" that has existed from time immemorial. This love of money is the love of having more of X in order to have more of Y which belongs to another person. Hence the love of money is the act of coveting. "Covet" means "to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another" (Merriam-Webster). The context of 1 Timothy 6:10 makes a connection between this love of money and the act of coveting, for the two are the same:
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Even without being philosophical, common sense dictates that people love money because they love having more of what belongs to other people. One could have this kind of love whether or not money exists as a physical object. This "love of money", or the act of coveting, certainly existed at the time of Lucifer's rebellion and man's original sin. Lucifer coveted God's throne (Isaiah 14:13) and man coveted the forbidden fruit. Hence it can be said that the love of money is the root of all evil.”
Did you miss this:
“In the first place ALL Bible translations frequently place a definite article "the" when it is not in the Greek text and omit it when it is there in the Greek. Even the Holy Ghost does the same thing when we compare the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke. Often the definite articles are found in a phrase in one gospel and not in the other.
This is not uncommon nor inaccurate in the least. There are several examples of both in all versions right here in 1 Timothy. A small sampling of examples are found in I Timothy 3:16. There is no definite article before "the" flesh, "the" Spirit and "the" world, yet all versions put them in the English text.
Likewise the definite articles are not translated in the NASB in 1 Tim. 6: 1 in 'the' masters, 'the' God and 'the' doctrine.”
That could be considered bible idolitry. It is certainly error. Every translation has mistakes. No one is a perfect translator. There are many good ones, but no perfect translators. The KJV may be the best translation in use. It may be more correct than most other bibles most of the time. But it is not always correct. It is not the KJV that is a problem. It is the "Onlyism" that is the error.
You may believe your statement, but that does not make your statement true nor scriptural. The Scriptures do not state nor teach your unproven belief concerning the KJV.
Why do you seek to demand that others say or believe your assertion that you have not proven to be true?
You can deceive yourself by believing claims or assertions that are not true and that are not scriptural.
There are actual verifiable facts that would conflict with your belief. It is a fact that the KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying text, which would mean that the KJV could not preserve every word. The Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged that fact in some of their marginal notes in the 1611 edition. The Bible doctrine of preservation concerns the specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles, and not the English renderings in the KJV.
It is also a fact that typical post-1900 editions of the KJV [excluding the 1611 reprint editions and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener] add over 150 whole words that were not in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and that they omit some words that were found in the 1611 edition. It is a fact that there are proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV so that the 1611 edition could not have perfectly preserved God's words.
Last edited:
Certainly Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Translators had a far greater impact with the 1611 Translators than the Rheims New Testament. But on rarer occasion, the KJV does follow the Rheims translation against the others. So the Rheims has less influence than the others by far. But the Rheims does have some smaller influences.
In a chapter entitled "The Catholic Contribution to the King James Bible" by Gordon Campbell in the 2018 book The English Bible in the Early Modern World edited by Robert Armstrong and Tadhg O hAnnraahain, Gordon Campbell described Carleton's 1902 book as "an exemplary piece of scholarship" and that "it reflects the state of knowledge in 1902" (p. 133).
In 1902, direct proof that the KJV translators consulted and made use of the 1582 Rheims had not yet been discovered so that Gordon Campbell observed that "the lack of proof meant that scholars such as Charles Butterworth could play down the notion that Reims was an important source for the KJV" (p. 133).
Gordon Campbell observed: "Proof that the translators had used Reims emerged in 1969" (p. 133).
Perhaps the evidence discovered by Ward Allen confirms Carleton's study and contradicts Butterworth's attempt to play down the direct influence of the Rheims on the KJV. The findings of Ward Allen may indicate a greater influence of the Rheims instead of a lesser one.
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). Ward Allen and Edward 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).
- Status