More accurate?

[pilgrim2009]

I'm not robycop3, but I have never said otherwise. In fact, I have stated the same thing. I can speak for no other in this, however. But, as robycop3 has posted, this was not promised to be in the English language or the KJV (or in any other particular language or version), anywhere in Scripture. Why would you (and I'm speaking of the general KJVO proponent, if not you specifically) insist on making claims about the KJV which no version of Scripture, KJV (any flavor) or other version, makes for itself, and even the translators of the Bible version generally known as the KJV (whom I'm certain were more sure of what they were undertaking than you or I could ever possibly be 400 years after the fact) ever made?

FTR, there are some other groups that proclaim (or have proclaimed) the same effective teaching as the "extreme KJVO" teaching as well, that 'ONLY' one version is the completely accurate transmission (and translation) of Scripture. Those would include the Roman Catholic church - first with the VUL and later the D-R; the LDS 'church' with the JST; and the 'Watchtower' with the NWT. Frankly, as a Baptist, I am not wanting to particularly be grouped with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, as to the principles I follow, but maybe that is just me.I never said any such thing. I can speak for no other. What I have said and can say is that the "inspiration" of Scripture (theopneustos - "God-breathed-out") which is reserved for the authors of Scripture, is not the same thing as the "preservation" of Scripture. For example, "the Law" (or Torah) was 'God-breathed-out' to two individuals, Moses and Joshua, according to Scripture. They and they alone, were the recipients and transmitters of this 'inspiration' from God. Ezra, by contrast and those with whom he was associated, was directly involved in the preservation (and explanation) of the Torah, but he was in no manner involved in the giving of that Torah, although we believe he was, in fact, the recipient and transmitter of other portions of Scripture, hence he was directly 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit, in those instances. Can you not see this difference, if you leave off the 'version blinders' here?This is pure doublespeak, from you.

Firstly, you are the one who has implied that John Wycliffe used the TR, when in fact, Wycliffe, Purvey and de Hereford used 'only' the VUL for their translations into English. The VUL was not simply one of some allegedly "Roman Catholic edited manuscripts" but is 100% entirely "Roman Catholic" in origin, production and preservation, en toto.

Secondly, there are several places where Erasmus used translated readings from the VUL in his Greek text, over and above those found in the Greek MSS he had access to, and I'm not simply referring to the last few verses of Revelation, where his single manuscript of that book was damaged, at the end, beyond recognition. This has been clearly shown in more places than one, although not particularly in this thread, I do not believe. Have you ever heard of the so-called "Johnannine Comma"? Uh- you know, the verse(s) that is argued that was kept accurately preserved in those faulty "Roman Catholic edited manuscripts" but was somehow 'lost' in the pure 'Antiochian' ones? Sorry! I ain't buyin' that argument, for a second!

You simply don't get to argue it both ways, here.

Thirdly , the translators of the KJV did not hold the same view you do, of the work of Jerome, for they cite him approvingly, in some instances. (You really should actually read what they have said, sometime, rather than simply what some KJVO advocate says. You can find this on-line easily, as well, and I will even help you out by pointing out that Jerome and "Saint Hierome" are one and the same individual. )

Fourthly, You also might wanna' check sometime, on how many times the KJV actually incorporates a rendering as found in the D-R, instead of those found in earlier English versions from the TYN and MCB, thru the GEN and BIS. (FTR, the 'Whitchurch' is the GEN.) Yes, these same verse are in both my preferred Bibles as well. They happen to be a particular edition of the KJV and a particular edition of the NKJV. Incidentally, I have several other complete Bibles, all of which have these same verses in them, as well. Something you are never willing to ascribe to the KJV and TR, obviously. You might actually check on how many times the KJV and the TR editors have actually edited their work(s), rather than merely spout off some 'party line' sometime.Surely you can find some better source that that of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger, in order to 'prove' your point.

Ed

You will trust Rome as the custodian of Vaticanus and Sinaticus from whence comes bibles you trust?

Rome Is The Custodian Of The Critical Text.

There are two copies of those Bibles in existence, A and B. The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And where are they? They are in the custodial care of Rome. Now almost all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, come through that stream. And that necessitates this comment: There is the false and the true streams of manuscripts. And either our manuscripts come through the false stream or the correct one, or the approved stream or manuscripts.

When people speak of the oldest manuscripts, they usually mean the A and the B. the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. But nobody has seen either one of those for 500 years. They've been under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies that Rome decided to give to the outside world, and I don't trust them one inch. Never, never, never! And I'll tell you why in just a moment.

None of our scholars today have seen either the A or the B. unless they've seen just a page or two through a glass case. But that's not enough to get the feel of the whole thing, just to see a page that is open at one place. So here we have the stream of manuscripts and the stream of Greek texts coming down through the "custodial care" of Rome. And if it's in the custodial care of Rome, I don't want anything to do with it.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Interesting.

The Jesuit attack against the reformation launched in the 1530`s is still strong today.


It is a common tactic today for Jesuits (and Jesuit agents) to use circular reasoning to attack the scriptures. I will examine some particular examples of this in later chapters, but generally here is how the argument goes. The Jesuit (or Jesuit agent) will claim that:

1. You cannot trust your Bible. The King James Version is tainted by the Latin Vulgate and the Geneva and earlier translations were tainted by Calvinism.


2. When asked where we might find God’s Word, they will reply that “God’s Word is established in Heaven”.

3. When asked where we might find the Word of God on earth, they will reply that the Scriptures are inerrant and are the very Word of God and are only available IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.


4. When asked where we might find the Original Manuscripts, they will say that they are lost and unavailable to us.

5. When asked again where we might find God’s Word so that we might worship him according to His will – they will tell us to get a good concordance and to seek the wisdom of “experts” in Greek and Hebrew.

In the end we are exhorted to seek guidance from the “Church” and from priests and pastors who alone are able to properly divide the scriptures for us.
It is not unimportant that there have been Jesuit priests and coadjutors on the translation teams of virtually every “new” Bible version, particularly the New International Version (NIV).

The Jesuits quickly realized that making martyrs of people always fans the flames of resistance, although they will eventually return to this tactic, their primary goal is to infiltrate and change Protestantism, redefining it so as to take away and obscure the Grace message.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545

In 1545, the Council of Trent was convened by Pope Paul III. In this Council, the Catholic Church adopted a stance on Justification that was blatantly contrary to the scriptures. In Canon 9 of the Council, the church declared,


If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

In the declaration of the Council of Trent, the Mark of Cain (co-operative sacrifice) was codified by the largest “Christian” entity in the world. The last day’s great deception was beginning to take shape.

During the closing hours of the Council, the Jesuits were ordered by the Pope to make war, both silently and openly against the Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was born.

Jesuit spies and agents slowly began to infiltrate Protestant schools and Seminaries. In order to defend the Romanist religion, as well as the Pope (who Catholics are taught is actually “Christ on earth”), the Jesuits began their war plan for a battle on many fronts, but a full attack on the Doctrines of Grace would be necessary if Rome was to ever prevail.

In 1560, unknown to the Jesuits, one of their greatest warriors was born in Holland. His name was James Harmenszoon, but he would come to be known as Jacobus Arminius.

Swarms of Locust.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Interesting.

The Jesuit attack against the reformation launched in the 1530`s is still strong today.


It is a common tactic today for Jesuits (and Jesuit agents) to use circular reasoning to attack the scriptures. I will examine some particular examples of this in later chapters, but generally here is how the argument goes. The Jesuit (or Jesuit agent) will claim that:

1. You cannot trust your Bible. The King James Version is tainted by the Latin Vulgate and the Geneva and earlier translations were tainted by Calvinism.


2. When asked where we might find God’s Word, they will reply that “God’s Word is established in Heaven”.

3. When asked where we might find the Word of God on earth, they will reply that the Scriptures are inerrant and are the very Word of God and are only available IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.


4. When asked where we might find the Original Manuscripts, they will say that they are lost and unavailable to us.

5. When asked again where we might find God’s Word so that we might worship him according to His will – they will tell us to get a good concordance and to seek the wisdom of “experts” in Greek and Hebrew.

In the end we are exhorted to seek guidance from the “Church” and from priests and pastors who alone are able to properly divide the scriptures for us.
It is not unimportant that there have been Jesuit priests and coadjutors on the translation teams of virtually every “new” Bible version, particularly the New International Version (NIV).

The Jesuits quickly realized that making martyrs of people always fans the flames of resistance, although they will eventually return to this tactic, their primary goal is to infiltrate and change Protestantism, redefining it so as to take away and obscure the Grace message.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545

In 1545, the Council of Trent was convened by Pope Paul III. In this Council, the Catholic Church adopted a stance on Justification that was blatantly contrary to the scriptures. In Canon 9 of the Council, the church declared,


If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

In the declaration of the Council of Trent, the Mark of Cain (co-operative sacrifice) was codified by the largest “Christian” entity in the world. The last day’s great deception was beginning to take shape.

During the closing hours of the Council, the Jesuits were ordered by the Pope to make war, both silently and openly against the Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was born.

Jesuit spies and agents slowly began to infiltrate Protestant schools and Seminaries. In order to defend the Romanist religion, as well as the Pope (who Catholics are taught is actually “Christ on earth”), the Jesuits began their war plan for a battle on many fronts, but a full attack on the Doctrines of Grace would be necessary if Rome was to ever prevail.

In 1560, unknown to the Jesuits, one of their greatest warriors was born in Holland. His name was James Harmenszoon, but he would come to be known as Jacobus Arminius.

Swarms of Locust.

And you want people to take you seriously? Ed is not a Jesuit spy. A southern baptist but not Jesuit. And did you know paranoia is a sign of Schizophrenia?

 

[EdSutton]

You will trust Rome as the custodian of Vaticanus and Sinaticus from whence comes bibles you trust?

Rome Is The Custodian Of The Critical Text.

There are two copies of those Bibles in existence, A and B. The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And where are they? They are in the custodial care of Rome. Now almost all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, come through that stream. And that necessitates this comment: There is the false and the true streams of manuscripts. And either our manuscripts come through the false stream or the correct one, or the approved stream or manuscripts.

When people speak of the oldest manuscripts, they usually mean the A and the B. the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. But nobody has seen either one of those for 500 years. They've been under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies that Rome decided to give to the outside world, and I don't trust them one inch. Never, never, never! And I'll tell you why in just a moment.

None of our scholars today have seen either the A or the B. unless they've seen just a page or two through a glass case. But that's not enough to get the feel of the whole thing, just to see a page that is open at one place. So here we have the stream of manuscripts and the stream of Greek texts coming down through the "custodial care" of Rome. And if it's in the custodial care of Rome, I don't want anything to do with it.

Once again, you are repeating a false statement. "Rome" does not have, nor has it ever had possession of the Codex Sinaictus. The great majority of that Codex is now located in London, with smaller portions located at Leipzig University in Germany, St. Catherine's Monastery, where it was initially 'discovered' by Count Tischendorf, and 3 fragmented sheets located at the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg.

And I don't recall ever saying I trusted 'Rome' with anything, so please dispense with that intended 'shot'.

In fact, it appears you actually trust Rome far more than I, for you are willing to trust Rome, when readings from the VUL are incorporated into the TR and KJV, over and above that of the majority of the Greek texts, which practice I have never advocated, that I can ever recall.

FTR, for a text that has allegedly not been seen for over 500 years (and which was only discoverd by the 'West' a little over a century and a half ago, to begin with) you might note that there is a thread open right now, where one can note that it is now found on-line.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=60405

In addition, although this particular one is a lousy site, IMO, due to the page format, one can see other images of Codex Aleph, on-line, as well.

And FTR, "A" is not Sinaiticus, but rather is the designation of Codex "Alexandrinus" which is also not under the purveyance of Rome, either, but is also located in the British Library.

But as I have previously asked, what is a little mis-information and falsehood among friends?? Apparently, not much for some folks!

Ed

 

[Logos1560]

And if it's in the custodial care of Rome, I don't want anything to do with it.

We see that you do not object to the KJV translators making use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in their revising of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to
create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv). Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139). David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

The Catholic Rheims New Testament had some influence on the vocabulary of the KJV in that some of its many Latinisms were adopted (Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 267). 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). 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). Wally Beebe's Bus Workers Edition of the Open Bible noted: "The New Testament part of this [Rheims] Bible was extensively used by the King James revisers" (p. 1221).

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). 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 an introductory article on "The English Bible" in The Interpeter's Bible, Allen Wikgren also noted that the Rheims "exerted a considerable influence upon the King James revision, in which many of its Latinisms were adopted" (Vol. I, p. 93). Herbert May confirmed that "some of its [the Rheims] phrases were used by the King James Version translators" (Our English Bible in the Making, p. 47). 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.

It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'. In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). Even Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536). Instead, she implied that the translators of the KJV avoided “multi-syllable Latin root-words” (p. 535).

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). 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, 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). Thus, the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims. Opfell observed that the Westminster company (Romans through Jude) "borrowed many Latinate words" from the Rheims (KJB Translators, p. 97). Even KJV defender Edward Hills acknowledged that the 1582 Douai Version influenced the KJV “slightly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 64). KJV-only author Jack Moorman also admitted that “a few phrases and single words” in the KJV were taken from the Rheims (Forever Settled, p. 188).

 

[rbell]

Wait, I'm confused...who is it I'm supposed to hate: Catholics, or Jews?

 

[EdSutton]

Uh, Ed- that should be "Dr." Gail A. Riplinger. Her degree is honorary.

I attempt to denote all who have the title of "Dr." equally, without regard to whether the degree is 'earned' or 'honorary' and without regard to the institution granting the degree.

Thus, while laboring under absolutely no illusions as to either the institution or individual, I address one who has an 'earned' doctorate from, say Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in the same manner as one who has an 'honorary' doctorate from 'Diploma Mill College', for if the institution is authorized to grant the degree by the state regs, that's good enough for me.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

Pilgrim, get your manuscript designations straight.

Aleph - Sinaiticus
A - Alexandrinus - mixed set of Byzantine Gospels and the rest is Alexandrian.
B - Vaticonus

Then your most important P series are:

P46
P66
P72
P74
P75
of course there is P52, the single oldest from the turn of the 1st to 2nd century.

All of which predate Aleph, A and B.

 

[pilgrim2009]

I attempt to denote all who have the title of "Dr." equally, without regard to whether the degree is 'earned' or 'honorary' and without regard to the institution granting the degree.

Thus, while laboring under absolutely no illusions as to either the institution or individual, I address one who has an 'earned' doctorate from, say Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in the same manner as one who has an 'honorary' doctorate from 'Diploma Mill College', for if the institution is authorized to grant the degree by the state regs, that's good enough for me.

Ed

I hear the rumor James white the kjv bible critic has a bogus degree pretending to be DR.Maybe he got his idea from C.I.Scofield?

Smile.

Steven.

 

[pilgrim2009]

We see that you do not object to the KJV translators making use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in their revising of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to
create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv). Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139). David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).

The Catholic Rheims New Testament had some influence on the vocabulary of the KJV in that some of its many Latinisms were adopted (Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 267). 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). 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). Wally Beebe's Bus Workers Edition of the Open Bible noted: "The New Testament part of this [Rheims] Bible was extensively used by the King James revisers" (p. 1221).

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). 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 an introductory article on "The English Bible" in The Interpeter's Bible, Allen Wikgren also noted that the Rheims "exerted a considerable influence upon the King James revision, in which many of its Latinisms were adopted" (Vol. I, p. 93). Herbert May confirmed that "some of its [the Rheims] phrases were used by the King James Version translators" (Our English Bible in the Making, p. 47). 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.

It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'. In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). Even Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536). Instead, she implied that the translators of the KJV avoided “multi-syllable Latin root-words” (p. 535).

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). 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, 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). Thus, the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims. Opfell observed that the Westminster company (Romans through Jude) "borrowed many Latinate words" from the Rheims (KJB Translators, p. 97). Even KJV defender Edward Hills acknowledged that the 1582 Douai Version influenced the KJV “slightly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 64). KJV-only author Jack Moorman also admitted that “a few phrases and single words” in the KJV were taken from the Rheims (Forever Settled, p. 188).

The Jesuits are crafty indeed.

In Jesus.

Steven.

 

[pilgrim2009]

And you want people to take you seriously? Ed is not a Jesuit spy. A southern baptist but not Jesuit. And did you know paranoia is a sign of Schizophrenia?

I happen to have an ebook with the facts.I will be happy to email you the book free of charge if your up to the facts.

God bless you to.

Steven.

 

[Tater77]

Oxford English Dictionary


Jesuit

/jezyooit/

• noun a member of the society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic order of priests founded by St Ignatius Loyola and others in 1534.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I attempt to denote all who have the title of "Dr." equally, without regard to whether the degree is 'earned' or 'honorary' and without regard to the institution granting the degree.

Thus, while laboring under absolutely no illusions as to either the institution or individual, I address one who has an 'earned' doctorate from, say Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in the same manner as one who has an 'honorary' doctorate from 'Diploma Mill College', for if the institution is authorized to grant the degree by the state regs, that's good enough for me.

Ed

Ok, Bro. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I will remain "EDRO"*, though.

(*Earned Doctorates Recognized Only)

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I hear the rumor James white the kjv bible critic has a bogus degree pretending to be DR.Maybe he got his idea from C.I.Scofield?

Smile.

Steven.

Another lie which can be quickly proven by going to the Alpha-Omega Ministries info page on DR. James White-

Education
B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

 

[pilgrim2009]

Another lie which can be quickly proven by going to the Alpha-Omega Ministries info page on DR. James White-

Education
B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

Scroll down for a bit of information.Take it up with him.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/noncatholic_apologists/



In Jesus God bless.

Steven.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Scroll down for a bit of information.Take it up with him.

http://www.jimmyakin.org/noncatholic_apologists/



In Jesus God bless.

Steven.

No thanks. I prefer to believe the man himself over anyone you might dig up on the WWW. We all know how reliable your sources are.

 

[pilgrim2009]

No thanks. I prefer to believe the man himself over anyone you might dig up on the WWW. We all know how reliable your sources are.

No be weary of those that attack Gods Word KJV English.He could well be a Jesuit pretending to be a Protestant.Christianity is full of them.

Steven.

 

[Mexdeaf]

No be weary of those that attack Gods Word KJV English.He could well be a Jesuit pretending to be a Protestant.Christianity is full of them.

Steven.

I'm more weary of your insistence that everyone who disagrees with you is a Jesuit Jewish Catholic pretending to be a Protestant hiding behind a tree dressed like Michael Jackson carrying a NWT.

Thank God for a sense of humor.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Get the book.


In his book FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, former catholic priest Charles Chiniquy had this to say about the Jesuits: "The Jesuits are a military organization, not a religious order. Their chief is the general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power. Power in the most despotic excercise.

Absolute power, universal power, power to control the World by the volition (will) of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms (dictatorship); and at the same time, the greatest and the most enormous of abuses." (The most monstrous hurt, injury and damage) "The general of the jesuits insists on being master, sovereign over the sovereign. Wherever the jesuits are admitted they will be masters, cost what it may.

Their society is by nature dictatorial, and therefore it is the irreconcilable enemy of all constituted authority. Every act, every crime, however attrocious, is a meritorious work, if committed for the interest of the society of the jesuits, or by the order of its general. page 174, in the book, FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, by Charles Chiniquy.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It's available on the web for free. Chiniquy was not KJVO, and he likely never even used a KJV.