Featured Which version is the Bible?

How about also this one?

differences between Bible versions Gary Zeolla ?

And I looked on your books authors background, didn;t see anything regarding textual criticism/text analysis!

 

I have a copy of that book and have read it. I disagree with your uninformed opinion of it. You have demonstrated at this forum that you do not know enough about this issue to make an informed evaluation of the book. It is not an excellent book, and it does not prove that a KJV-only theory is sound and scriptural.

It depends upon the same type subjective, biased, faulty reasoning that you post here. A modern, man-made KJV-only theory depends upon use of fallacies [false arguments] and use of unrighteous divers measures or weights.

 

Waldensian Bibles

Is it excellent to quote favorably inaccurate or misleading claims that will mislead or deceive readers? Is it excellent to fail to check your sources to see whether their claims are actually correct or factual?

In a quotation that is from Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson’s book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Floyd Jones claimed “the translators of the 1611 had before them four Bibles which had come under Waldensian influences: the Dioadati in Italian, the Olivetan in French, the Lutheran in German, and the Genevan in English. Strong evidence exists that they also had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular” (Which Version, p. 105).

Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson was uninformed and misinformed about the Waldensian Bibles, and he was attempting to connect the Waldensians with Seventh-Day Adventist assertions concerning worship on Saturday.

Wilkinson claimed: “This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken in the days of the Reformation” (Fuller, Which Bible, p. 128). In 2005, KJV-only author David Cloud acknowledged that some of Wilkinson’s “history, in fact, is strongly influenced by his devotion to Seventh-day Adventist ’prophetess’ Ellen G. White” and that “Wilkinson got the idea that the Waldensian Bible is ’preserved uncorrupted’ from Ellen White’s Great Controversy” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 13).


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).

 

have you read the book that I posted on this issue?

Another good book, even if one is not agreeing with the Critical text would be the The text and Transmission of the New testament by Kurt Aland, that was one that I schooled under!

 

Acts 12:4 and Luke 22:1

Concerning Acts 12:4, Floyd Jones claimed that “the King James translators realized that to render ‘pascha’ as ‘Passover’ in this instance was both impossible and erroneous” (Which Version, p. 51, footnote 2).

Jones claimed that "the Passover had already come and gone. Herod (Agrippa) could not possibly have been referring to the Passover in this citation" (p. 51, footnote 2).

Is Floyd Jones unaware of Luke 22:1?

Luke wrote: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1). Along with Luke 22:1, the KJV-only claims also ignore Ezekiel 45:21 where the Passover is referred to as “a feast of seven days.” In Ezekiel 45:21, the name “Passover” was clearly used for or used to include the feast of Unleavened Bread, which is a feast of seven days.

In the context and considering Luke 22:1, there is no problem with understanding Luke to be using “pascha” in Acts 12:4 as a name for or including the feast of unleavened bread. Thus, Herod could have been waiting for the end of the days or feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1).

The immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3). The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews. Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival? Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews? Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews? It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted. The verse or context does not say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha. “The people” of Acts 12:4 would be referring to or be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3. Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again. In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival. Therefore, the context supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha instead of the view that Herod was keeping it. If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he was keeping and not some pagan festival. Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1. KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14). If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1. Is it not sound reasoning to consider Luke and the Holy Spirit competent and credible witnesses as to the sense in which the Holy Spirit used the word pascha at Luke 22:1 and Acts 12:4?

 

Hasn't the knowledge of hebrew/greek lexicons/dictionaries, historical evidences etc GREATLY expanded concerning this since the time of the KJV team?

Wouldn't modern scholars, regardless if holding to superiority of the TR/MT/CT have a better means to get back to the originals than they had?

 

Rick, I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with an opinion expressed on this board. I don't have a clue as to Winman's education level nor do I care. As far as I'm concerned, he is a brother in Christ. (Or a sister, if that's applicable.)

If, in his viewpoint, he finds that book to be excellent, he is entitled to have that opinion and to share same. Without being subjected to insults such as this one.

My uneducated father was subjected to such demeaning remarks by those who felt far superior to him. An ignorant, red-necked, sharecropper farmer who was expected to grovel before his "superiors". To come before them, hat in hand, and gratefully acknowledge their lofty achievements, in order to be (sometimes) spared being covered with bountiful humilation.

As the author of several books on the subject of KJVO your OPINION is quite clear. Despite anything you say to the contrary, it can only be opinion because the "originals", so often referenced in this controversy, do not exist. Just like the author of any other book, pro or con KJB -- biased one way or the other --, is only stating an opinion for the same reason.

Yesterday, I discovered the review of your book by Will Kinney.
Book Review: The Unbound Scriptures - Part 1 - Part 5 [of 17 Parts]
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/unboundscriptures.htm

Even though I've only had time to read a small portion, now I understand why you felt compelled to make the following comment, rather than addressing what Kenny said in the referenced article in this thread. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=85105

Your response:

Once again, offer proof in terms this uneducated layman can understand, why this author's work is biased while your's isn't. Offer proof that he is making false accusations. If I understand correctly, "false accusations" are lies.

From this layman's standpoint, two authors have different opinions on the same subject. Each is entitled to his opinion. Each is presumed to be a member of the body of Christ.

Right now I'm weighing both sides of this issue, and have been for a while. Brother, how does your response to Brother Winman (and similar replies to others) aid in confirming your credibility? Is there anywhere on the web where you refuted Brother Kinney's review of your book with the same degree of thoroughness that he used in outlining his OPINION, point by point? ie in xyz paragraph he is incorrect because............. .

Throwing out long series of opinions written by others, selectively chosen, does little, in this insignificant layman's view, to establish that Kinney has lied. Given a little more time and study, there's a good chance that I can come up with an equally impressive list to counter yours. After all, the arguement has been going on for over 400 years. And has been increasing since 1881 aided by high speed technology to mass merchandise copyrighted "versions" of God's word.

In closing I use the KJB in study. However, while leaning in the direction of KJVO, mainly because of the relentless attack upon it, I doubt that I'll ever be one. Simply because my father never read a word from any version of a Bible. Yet, without a single doubt, I know I'll be seeing him at the feet of Jesus, when I join him there.

:null:

 

IF you rread thru all the KJVO hype and hysteria, and try to weigh what they hold to regarding the bible versions...

is it really true that Nasb/Niv/Esv deny the deity of christ, water down the bible?

their ONLY contention is that "MV missing verses, must be satanic " truth is that they have NO WAY to prove those missing passages/verses well even actually in the originals!

that is main problem, they try to make the bible be what it was NOT, and try to make the KJV the preserved word of god, when that was to the originals themselves!

The ONLY way to get where they want us to go is too assume Apsotolic inspiration rested upon the KJV translators, are you willing to go there?

 

I see hype and hysteria on both sides of this issue. I see people, like yourself lumping everyone in the same catagory. Even though many KJVO people do NOT share the extremist positions of those most guilty of hype and hysteria. There are KJVO who have joined forces with MV to refute and to recognize the damage done among the lost by the worst of the offenders.

It's the same on the other side of the issue. It is wrong for me to brand everyone with a preference to MV with the same label that can fairly be applied to a few who end up vilifying God in their attempts to discredit the KJB.

In this comment, I'm assuming you had a typo.
" they have NO WAY to prove those missing passages/verses well (were?) even actually in the originals!

How can you prove they were not? The stalemate that relegates both sides of this controvery to something other than using the originals to prove their point is this. NEITHER side has access to the "originals" to ACTUALLY confirm or deny their positions. God promised to preserve His word. God had a reason why He didn't preserve (at least we haven't found them, if they reside somewhere on this earth) the "originals".

Again, God promised to preserve His word. IMO we have to look for more than "originals" upon which to base our viewpoints.

 

Which KJVO author does not hold that the version is divinly inspired/inerrant, and the MV are all wrong/bad though? name please?

 

Stating the truth that someone shows in their posts that they are uninformed about a particular subject is not claiming that they are uneducated. They could have a PHD or being very well-educated about other subjects. My comments stated nothing about his education level.

He was not subjected to personal insults although he has clearly dished out some himself, attacking me personally even attacking my faith in God and in the Scriptures, and you have not objected to his improper accusations. He has at least implied if not asserted that I am not a believer and claimed that I was a "skeptic" and "doubter" who did not believe God or the Scriptures.

In contrast to him, I assume that KJV-only advocates are fellow believers regardless of their accusations against me.

My proper, accurate statement [A modern, man-made KJV-only theory depends upon use of fallacies [false arguments] and use of unrighteous divers measures or weights] was stated concerned a view and not concerning him personally.

I attempt to direct my comments towards arguments, claims, and statements, and it is proper to show or point out that certain arguments are actually fallacies, that certain claims are false or are unproven, etc.
When someone makes incorrect or false claims, it would demonstrate that they are misinformed concerning what they claimed.

Pointing out the actual problems with a KJV-only theory is not attacking the KJV. I attempt to take KJV-only arguments and claims and to apply them consistently to see if they are valid. If that supposedly harms the KJV, my contention would be that problem actually demonstrated would be with the KJV-only argument or claim, and not with the KJV itself.

If I am biased toward any translation, it is towards the KJV since it is the translation that I grew up with and still mainly read.

 

That would make you a KJVP, as still waiting to see the KJVO authors that are 'reasonable!" Closest found are those who would hold to the TR/MT texts being closer to originals than the CT, but even they say literal CT versions like nasb/Esv are OK, just KJV better!

 

reviews of my book

A number of people who have read my book find very little in Kinney's review that actually accurately represents the sound, documented evidence in my book. Since Will Kinney distorts and misrepresents the points and arguments in my book, why would I need to refute his comments that did not refute and answer what I actually wrote? Kinney deals with very little of the actual points and established facts presented in my book. His review is easily answered by a reading of my book, and checking out its evidence.

I read his review several years ago, willing to accept any valid assertions that he would make, but I could find little valid objections in his review. I do recall one valid criticism or point raised by Will Kinney that I considered and corrected when I expanded one chapter of my book concerning archiac words from around 20 pages to over 100 pages in a separate booklet entitled KJV-only Myths About Archaic Words.

Will Kinney used the fallacy of false dilemma as he tried improperly to assert that anyone who disagrees with KJV-only opinions accept the views of liberals or unbelievers.

One person did write a detailed response to Kinney's review, pointing out misrepresentation and misrepresentation that he posted at some forums on this issue.

A review by Fred Butler, who knows both sides of this issue because he once held a KJV-only view, is a far more balanced and objective one.

That review can be found at Fred Butler's web site perhaps under a heading "reviews"
www.fredsbibletalk.com

 

have you personally ever read ANY adament KJVO holder that wrote valid arguements for their position, and not base it upon hysteria and bad logic/

NOT speaking about having TR or MT seen as superior, but the KJV itself?

 

Rick, finally had a little time read Fred's review of your book.

His first sentence told me how "balanced" his review would be. After reading his review of your book, checked out the other reviews he wrote among other things on his site. Found his "objective" viewpoint with regards to the KJVO debate here on his favorite links page.
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/favorites.html

You told me:

and of another author's review of your book

Then you suggest a link to a review that "is a far more balanced and objective one."

And you say I'm biased................

 

You did not actually point out anything in Fred Butler's review that demonstrated that it was not far more balanced and objective than the subjective review made by Will Kinney.

What did Fred Butler state in his actual review of my book that supposedly was not balanced?

In his review, Will Kinney uses many distortions and misrepresentations as he tries to paint his incorrect strawman caricatures that do not deal with the truths and evidences actually stated.

 

Since this thread had other posts about a review of my book, I moved a related comment to this thread.

In the thread about varying KJV editions

Will Kinney would believe incorrectly if he believes what you claim. You illustrate how Will Kinney was seeking to misrepresent and distort what I actually stated. He failed to distinguish between what I quoted from other authors and what I asserted myself. I quoted from many KJV-only authors in my book, but that would not suggest that I agreed 100% with what they stated. Likewise, when I quoted from other authors it does not mean that I agreed 100% with what they stated. The quotations provide evidence concerning some point or fact that was being made or established, but that does not mean that there was 100% agreement with everything that the source claimed.

I actually clearly stated the following in my book before discussing examples where I suggested that the KJV may have a rendering less accurate than that in another English translation.

I wrote: "If the KJV is to be regarded as a perfect translation, in every verse it should have the most accurate rendering of the Scriptures in the original languages. If another translation is more accurate in its translation of a word, phrase, or verse, it shows that the translating in the KJV could be improved and made more accurate when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Therefore, some examples will be presented where another translation may be more accurate than the KJV. In some example, one of the pre-1611 English Bibles may be more accurate than the KJV. Some of the quoted sources refer to the rendering in the KJV as 'mistranslations.' This writer is only making the point that another English translation may be more accurate than the KJV in some of these examples." (p. 320)

 

IMO...
Rick, I pointed out how biased Fred's viewpoint is concerning the KJB in my last reply. I read all 4.5 pages of his review. There he continues express his view of this subject, using your book as his soapbox.

This is from the section section dealing the supposed view of AV translators and King James, by KJVO advocates. Some of what he said:

Rick, you cannot tell me this man is objective and balanced when he uses terms like "nauseating praise", "godliest men the church has ever known", etc. That's just a representative sample from his review. Rick, I believe you are a fair man. Can you truthfully say that is the viewpoint of the most of the people who take the KJVO position?

Did discover one interesting point that I don't remember paying much attention to in the past

I've also read Will Kinney's work. Don't know how many print pages his entails, since it is 17 part review of UnBound.

In the same section of your book on translators and King James he had this to say. Said without the adjectives that flow from Fred's keyboard. Sounds a lot more "balanced and objective", IMO. for whatever that may be worth.

I have to leave shortly and return to church. Plus, there's way too much to copy/paste to continue at this point. I encourage everyone to read both reviews. Read them both in full, when you have time to give thought to what you are reading. That's why I didn't reply earlier when Rick first gave the link.

http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/Unbound.pdf
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/unboundscriptures.htm

Form your own opinion.

 

I don't need to read any reviews by Will Kinney to know that he is incapable of giving an unbiased opinion of any book that is not supportive of KJVO doctrine.

Will has branded (pun intended) himself as a man who would stop at nothing to protect his pet KJVO doctrine. I have read countless articles of his and they are loaded with innuendo, logical fallacies and doublespeak.