MV's under attack

[HankD]

If a translation of the word of God cannot be considered the word of God then we are of all men most miserable. Your statement is most illogical.

The original autographs are the Word of God by Inspiration.
The copies of these originals are the Word of God by Preservation.
The KJV translation is the Word of God by derivation from those manuscripts.

Personally I believe the Greek Traditional Text compiled by Scrivener (1894) is the virtual original which I can "hold in my hands".

No translation of men can be perfect.
As I noted in another thread, Paul is reputed to have said "God forbid" by the KJV translators. These words attributed to Paul can not be found in any manuscript copies of the originals.

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

IMHO, the "attack" on the Word of God is from liberalism that will not believe or follow the Word.

It is sad, though, that so-called conservatives like many of the KJVonly group are the second leading group "attacking" the Word of God.

I am still waiting for real attacks on the AV! I have seen people say it was archaic or outdated, but no one has said it was the "devil's" per-version or "not inspired". THOSE are mean-spirited attacks, my friends!

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:

Isn't that exactly what the serpent did? "Correct" the Word?

Isn't that the premise behind the MV's? To "correct" the KJB?

Isn't it also the premise behind the KJV? To "correct" the Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale's Bible, and the Geneva Bible? Why is it permissible for the KJV to "correct" the word of God as it was found in earlier English translations, but not permissible for later English translations to "correct" the word of God as it is found in the KJV?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

but not permissible for later English translations to "correct" the word of God as it is found in the KJV?

MVs Correct the KJB? hardly! OMIT from the KJB? YES!!

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
MVs Correct the KJB? hardly! OMIT from the KJB? YES!!

Omitting anything that had previously added to is one way of correcting, Nevvie. But fortunately true MV's do not use the Anglican Version as their basis.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by MV-neverist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> but not permissible for later English translations to "correct" the word of God as it is found in the KJV?

MVs Correct the KJB? hardly! OMIT from the KJB? YES!! </font>[/QUOTE]That is the point. They have to correct everything the KJV added. Why does this point escape the KJVOs?

 

[AV Defender]

But fortunately true MV's do not use the Anglican Version as their basis.

You are SOOOOO right! They use the Jesuit Catholic dark age manuscripts of the RCC;consisting of Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus(A.K.A. the trash can version).

Omitting anything that had previously added to is one way of correcting

This is the finest example of banal thinking I ever seen! Eve(Gen 3),Balaam(Numbers 22:12-13),Satan(Luke 4:10) and those who fall under John 16:9 will be glad to know that OMISSION was okay after all!!

 

[neal4christ]

They use the Jesuit Catholic dark age manuscripts of the RCC;consisting of Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus(A.K.A. the trash can version).

Just like the KJV has readings directly from the official Bible of the Catholic Church for many centuries, the Latin Vulgate, and its underlying text, the TR, was put together by a Roman Catholic humanist cleric, Erasmus. Everytime you bring this up I am going to point out your double standard and hypocrisy.

Neal

 

[AV Defender]

Just like the KJV has readings directly from the official Bible of the Catholic Church for many centuries, the Latin Vulgate,

You know, you really should get all of the facts straight before you post,it really does not help you're side to be misinformed.The readings from the Latin Vulgate came from the OLD LATIN (Greek Vulgate)because the underlying Manuscripts(Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus-A.K.A. the trash can version)did not contain those readings.

and its underlying text, the TR, was put together by a Roman Catholic humanist cleric, Erasmus.

Nothing,and I mean NOTHING Erasmus wrote,or anything translated from Erasmus' texts is recognized by the RCC,period.The council of trent BANNED everything that had to do with Erasmus.FACT!

Everytime you bring this up I am going to point out your double standard and hypocrisy.

Great! And everytime you parrot somthing that someone told you--like the above--I will point out you're ignorance of the matter.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pioneer:
...I attack modern versions ... I "hate" all modern versions.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Istherenotacause:
Isn't that exactly what the serpent did? "Correct" the Word?

Isn't that the premise behind the MV's? To "correct" the KJB?

So, the KJV authors must have been doing what the Serpent did by correcting the Wycliffe, Geneva, and Tyndale.

 

[Archangel7]

{non-Baptist post}

[ June 08, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[TomVols]

12 hour notice. Wrap it up.

 

[neal4christ]

You know, you really should get all of the facts straight before you post,it really does not help you're side to be misinformed.

Hmm....you know what came to mind? The pot calling the kettle black!

Was Erasmus a Catholic cleric when he did the TR? A simple yes or no will do, no explanation needed.

The readings from the Latin Vulgate came from the OLD LATIN (Greek Vulgate)because the underlying Manuscripts(Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus-A.K.A. the trash can version)did not contain those readings.

Just point me to the heap of manuscripts that read like 1 John 5:7-8 and the last 7 verses of Revelation (particularly v.19 that reads "book of life"). Then it will be settled. As for the Old Latin, it was still a Latin Bible, not a Greek manuscript. So what's the difference? It still came from Latin. I haven't heard it called the Greek Vulgate. Where did you find that name, I would be interested.

Nothing,and I mean NOTHING Erasmus wrote,or anything translated from Erasmus' texts is recognized by the RCC,period.The council of trent BANNED everything that had to do with Erasmus.FACT!

Okay. Nevermind he was still a Catholic when he put it together, you haven't gotten rid of the humanist part. Do you totally agree theologically with him? Or the KJV translators for that matter? And it still doesn't change the fact that he translated from the Latin Vulgate to Greek. Thus, some of the readings come from the Vulgate. Simple. Also, what about Lucifer? Where did that name come from that the KJV translators used? I wonder.........

Great! And everytime you parrot somthing that someone told you--like the above--I will point out you're ignorance of the matter.

Do I get to ignore the truth like you do though?

Neal

[ June 09, 2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[AV Defender]

Was Erasmus a Catholic cleric when he did the TR? A simple yes or no will do, no explanation needed.

No,but for you're benefit I will show you my previous exlplaination:" Nothing,and I mean NOTHING Erasmus wrote,or anything translated from Erasmus' texts is recognized by the RCC,period.The council of trent BANNED everything that had to do with Erasmus.FACT! ".So you see,the RCC did not recognize him or his works.

Just point me to the heap of manuscripts that read like 1 John 5:7-8 and the last 7 verses of Revelation (particularly v.19 that reads "book of life").

Manuscript 61,Codex Ravianus,the Chester Beatty Papyri(P45,P46,and P47)P47 contained the entire book of Revelation(like Rev 22),somthing the Alexandrian manuscripts don't have;they had to borrow it from the Byzantine type texts.

Then it will be settled.

We'll see.

As for the Old Latin, it was still a Latin Bible, not a Greek manuscript. So what's the difference? It still came from Latin.

The difference is simple,the Old Latin Bibles read like the KJB;due to the fact it came from the God honoring Syrian/Byzantine manuscripts of the Reformation;Jerome's Vulgate did not.And this Old Latin(150)preceded Jerome's Vulgate(405),it also preceded the Papal Vaticanus,and Sinaiticus(trash can version)by more than 150 years.The traditional text in Latin,from AD 130-240 was the Old Latin of the Waldenses(AD157)which matche the Syrian Textus Receptus of Antioch.Jerome had to borrow from the Old Latin to comple his work,due to the fact the Alexandrian manuscripts did not have them;FACT!
Bottom line,Erasmus used the Old Latin!!

Okay. Nevermind he was still a Catholic when he put it together,

Already cleared that up.

you haven't gotten rid of the humanist part.

Nothing but heresay.

Do you totally agree theologically with him? Or the KJV translators for that matter?

I,once again,could care less about them;it is the PRODUCT they produced I care about!

And it still doesn't change the fact that he translated from the Latin Vulgate to Greek. Thus, some of the readings come from the Vulgate. Simple.

Done been covered already.Simple.

Also, what about Lucifer? Where did that name come from that the KJV translators used? I wonder.........

Don't change the subject.

[ June 09, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

[Ransom]

Bartholomew said:

If there was a box that said, "I oppose the NIV's errors and wish all NIVs would disapear and be replaced by AVs" then I would certainly tick it!

Area KJV-onlyist admits: I would arbitrarily interfere with other Christians' personal property. Story on page A4.