SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The King James or a Newer Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 The King James or a Newer Version?



[b]
Check out these verses of Scripture, 1st in the NIV, then in the KJV:[/b]

Mark 1 (New International Version)
Mark 1
1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

2 [b] It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way— [/b]

3 a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'



Mark 1 (King James Version)
Mark 1
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 [b] As it is written in the prophets,[/b] Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

As you probably noticed in the 2nd verse of the New International Version (NIV) it says:[b]
“…It is written in Isaiah the prophet…”
I have no problem with the accuracy of the translation from the Alexandrian text-based MSS from which the NIV was TRANSLATED. It is no doubt a correct and accurate TRANSLATION OF the Alexandrian text.

The problem is that the words quoted in the NIV’s 2nd and 3rd verses ARE NOT ALL FROM THE PROPHET ISAIAH.[/b]

[b][color=990000]These words were obviously translated from bogus manuscripts. And here’s why……[/color][/b]

“…I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way…” is not from Isaiah.

[b]Those words are from the book of Malachi, chapter three and verse one.[/b]

[b]Here are the words from Isaiah:
“…a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him…”[/b]

[b]So you see, the real Word of God, written by an author who was inspired of the Holy Spirit, copied and translated by men who were called and anointed by the Holy Spirit, who produced an accurate English translation that was ordained and preserved by the Holy Spirit – knew that those words were from TWO different prophets of God, NOT just Isaiah!

Thus, we have the real and genuine Word of God saying, “…As it is written in the prophets…” [/b]

[b][color=CC0000]In conclusion, I think that the reason all those “older” manuscripts (referred to in all of the newer "Bible versions") are in such good shape is because the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christians took one look at those bogus versions of Mark’s gospel, and said, “…Who wrote this JUNK?” “This is NOT the Word of God!”
They probably took them to the local used Gnostic book stores where they must have had to actually pay them to take the parchments off their hands. Much like trying to sell one of those green Watchtower bibles today.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2009/2/20 22:59
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

Quote:
In conclusion, I think that the reason all those “older” manuscripts (referred to in all of the newer "Bible versions") are in such good shape is because the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christians took one look at those bogus versions of Mark’s gospel, and said, “…Who wrote this JUNK?” “This is NOT the Word of God!”



Interesting opinion... Too bad we'll never know what the early Christians thought.


_________________
Jordan

 2009/2/21 13:40Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 522


 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

waltern wrote:

Quote:
In conclusion, I think that the reason all those “older” manuscripts (referred to in all of the newer "Bible versions") are in such good shape is because the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christians took one look at those bogus versions of Mark’s gospel, and said, “…Who wrote this JUNK?” “This is NOT the Word of God!” They probably took them to the local used Gnostic book stores where they must have had to actually pay them to take the parchments off their hands. Much like trying to sell one of those green Watchtower bibles today.



This is pure speculation on your part and there is no historical evidence to back it up with. James White confronts this type of thinking in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwLnuza6R4

 2009/2/21 15:49Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7470
Mississippi

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

Check out Isaiah 40:3.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2009/2/21 16:38Profile









 Re:



To TrueWitness:

Thank you for the link to James White, which I did take the time to view.

James White is one of the "scholars" of our day (identical to the "scholars" of today who have taken over our Bible Colleges) that has followed in the foot steps of the original "scholars" who were Brooks Westcott & Fenton Hort (when they published their "Revised New Testament" in 1881, of which ALL OF THE NEWER BIBLE VERSIONS RELY)---and really think they know better than God because[b] they do not believe God because God's Word tells us that He will Preserve His Word, yet they do not believe what God has said! They have become the ultimate Textural Critics of the very Words of God. They say that you have to KNOW THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, BUT THEN TURN RIGHT AROUND AND REJECT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY OF MANUSCRIPTS DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY THINK IS BETTER THAN WHAT GOD SAID![/b]

Below is a list of manuscript evidence for the two readings.[b] Remember, when you see Byzantine text that it is talking about over ninety-five percent of the available manuscripts today! Don't be fooled by a list of manuscripts that looks even in count, but has Bytantine listed in one group. [/b]

The following manuscripts contain the reading [b]'IN THE PROPHETS'[/b] as does the KJV, the place following the / is where the ms can be seen, and the Roman numeral is the century (ie V= 5th Century, or 400 A.D.) the ms dates to:

A Alexandrinus/London V
K Uncial 017/Paris IX
P Uncial 024/Leningrad VI
W Uncial 032/Washington V
II Uncial 041/Leningrad IX
f/13 Family 13 manuscripts include 13 (XIII), 69 (XV), 124 (XI), 346, (XII), 543 (XII),
788 (XI), 826 (XII), 828 (XII), 983 (XII), 1689, (XIII); All of which are miniscules.

All of the following are Miniscule mss.

28 Miniscule/XI
1009 Miniscule/1200 AD
1010 Miniscule/XII
1079 Miniscule/X
1195 Miniscule/1223 AD
1216 Miniscule/XI
1230 Miniscule/1224 AD
1242 Miniscule/XIII
1253 Miniscule/XV
1344 Miniscule/XII
1365 Miniscule/XII
1546 Miniscule/1263 AD (?)
2148 Miniscule/1337 AD

Byz The Majority of Byzantine Manuscripts dating from 450 thru the XVII (17th Century, or 1600 A.D.)

Lect/m The Majority of Lectionaries in the Menologion.

syr/h The Syrian Harclean Peshetta/2nd to the 7th century

cop/bo/ms-mg The Coptic (Bohairic) ms=manuscript mg=marginal note/3rd to 6th century

arm Armemian Version (Zohrab)/4th or 5th century

eth Ethiopic Version/6th century

Irenaius/lst Church Father/202 AD

Photitus /895,

Theophylact /1077,

As you can see, the testimony support the KJV reading is vast, and covers everywhere from the beginning of the 2nd century AD [b](Time of John) to the early modern era.[/b]



[b][color=990000]Please Note, that the majority of the following are corrupt Alexandrian texts.[/color][/b]

[b]"ISAIAH THE PROPHET" [/b]is found in the following manuscripts.
Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.)
Codex Vaticanus (4th cent.)
Codex Bezae (6th cent.) also known as Codex D
Codex Regius (8th cent.) also known as Codex L
Codex Delta (9th cent.)
Codex Theta (9th cent.)

It is also in the following minuscules.
33 (9th cent)
565 (9th cent.)
892 (9th cent.)
700 (11th cent.)
1071 (12th cent.)
1241 (12th cent.)
2174 (14th cent.)

Additionally, the reading is found in the following translations.
Some old Latin, vulgate, syrian, copic, and gothic versions.

[b]"in the prophets" is supported by the following manuscripts.
Codex Alexandruinus (5th cent.) also known as Codex A
Codex K (9th cent.)
Codex P (6th cent.)
Codex Washingtonus (5th cent.) also known as Codex W
Codex Leningradus (9th cent.)

The reading is also found in the following minuscules.
28 (11th cent.)
1009 (13th cent.)
1010 (12th cent.)
1079 (10th cent.)
1195 (1123 AD)
1216 (11th cent.)
1230 (1124 AD)
1242 (13th cent.)
1253 (15th cent.)
1344 (12th cent.)
1365 (12th cent.)
1546 (1263 AD)
1646 (1172 AD)
2148 (1337 AD)

The reading can also be found among the following early translations. Syrian, copic, armian, and in the Byzantine text[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter


Quote:

TrueWitness wrote:
waltern wrote:

Quote:
In conclusion, I think that the reason all those “older” manuscripts (referred to in all of the newer "Bible versions") are in such good shape is because the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christians took one look at those bogus versions of Mark’s gospel, and said, “…Who wrote this JUNK?” “This is NOT the Word of God!” They probably took them to the local used Gnostic book stores where they must have had to actually pay them to take the parchments off their hands. Much like trying to sell one of those green Watchtower bibles today.



This is pure speculation on your part and there is no historical evidence to back it up with. James White confronts this type of thinking in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwLnuza6R4


 2009/2/21 17:35
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Walter,

How do you know that the TR is the best text? What proof can you give to us that it is the TR and not the other texts, that is right?


_________________
Jordan

 2009/2/21 17:57Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

Quote:
As you probably noticed in the 2nd verse of the New International Version (NIV) it says:
“…It is written in Isaiah the prophet…”
I have no problem with the accuracy of the translation from the Alexandrian text-based MSS from which the NIV was TRANSLATED. It is no doubt a correct and accurate TRANSLATION OF the Alexandrian text.

The problem is that the words quoted in the NIV’s 2nd and 3rd verses ARE NOT ALL FROM THE PROPHET ISAIAH.

These words were obviously translated from bogus manuscripts.



Actually, if you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the later copyists altered the words "in Isaiah the prophet" (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula "in the prophets"?

As to any issues concerning the inerrancy of scripture please see A.T. Robertson's notes on this passage:

In Isaiah, the prophet (en tōi Esaiāi tōi prophētēi). The quotation comes from Mal_3:1 and Isa_40:3. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, “the prophets,” an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in testimonia and catenae (chains of quotations). This is Mark’s only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).

FYI: I used Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for this response. I recommend it to all who desire to know why the modern translations made the changes they made.[url=http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-New-Testament/dp/1598561642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235353574&sr=8-1]Link to Book[/url]

 2009/2/22 20:58Profile









 Re:The King James or a newer version?



To JaySaved:


This is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a “scholar”, from one of the elite. In other words, you are saying that everyone who wants to really understand and know the Bible, must have a total understanding of Greek and Hebrew, as well as a little "Textural Criticism" thrown in to boot. This is a necessity, you say, because only “scholars” can understand and teach God’s Word. Only "scholars" know the real deal.

"I am the LORD, I change not."
Malachi 3:6

[b]We must remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God's Spirit. It is not possible for the natural man to understand it [I Corinthians 2:14], hence paraphrasing or simplifying it will do no good.[/b] The Bible is not supposed to read like a fairy tale--Peter said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables" [II Peter 1:16]. The words of the Authorized King James are not laborious -- they are beautiful and full of God's power. Even the world knows it--the Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthology's list of "the world's best literature" for decades.


In the not so far distant past the Roman Catholic Church made it impossible for the common man to read a Bible. Only the educated Priests and Monks had access to the Bible, and it was a crime, punishable by death, for ANYONE ELSE to read the Bible. It was the job of the Roman Catholic Church to tell the people what the Bible really meant.

[b]When Luther finally broke away from Rome, and had the Bible printed in German for the common man, did he use the text from the corrupt Roman Catholic Bible? No, of course not! He used the text found in early believing Church, that was passed down to us from the first believers at Antioch in the 1st Century, and is drastically different than the corrupt text that was used to create the Roman Catholic Bible---the same corrupt text used to create the Roman Catholic Bible was used to create the 1881 "Revised New Testament" by Westcott & Hort---the same corrupt text that has been used as the basis of every new "Bible version" since 1881
(the NIV, NASB,The Message,etc, etc. etc.):
[/b]
[b]A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:[/b]

I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)
A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

V.[b] Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.

VI. Luther (16th. century)

A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

VII. The King James Bible (1611)

A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.[/b]

B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.

1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).

2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.

3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

4. Dr. Miles Smiths: He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.

5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."

7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."

8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.

NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"

C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611.

D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God.

[b]E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.

Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."[/b]

1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?

2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?

[b]3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.

4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???[/b]

5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God

God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

[b]Who was God's Word translated for?

Answer? The common man. [/b]

Sincerely,

Walter
:-)

Quote:

JaySaved wrote:
Quote:
As you probably noticed in the 2nd verse of the New International Version (NIV) it says:
“…It is written in Isaiah the prophet…”
I have no problem with the accuracy of the translation from the Alexandrian text-based MSS from which the NIV was TRANSLATED. It is no doubt a correct and accurate TRANSLATION OF the Alexandrian text.

The problem is that the words quoted in the NIV’s 2nd and 3rd verses ARE NOT ALL FROM THE PROPHET ISAIAH.

These words were obviously translated from bogus manuscripts.



Actually, if you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the later copyists altered the words "in Isaiah the prophet" (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula "in the prophets"?

As to any issues concerning the inerrancy of scripture please see A.T. Robertson's notes on this passage:

In Isaiah, the prophet (en tōi Esaiāi tōi prophētēi). The quotation comes from Mal_3:1 and Isa_40:3. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, “the prophets,” an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in testimonia and catenae (chains of quotations). This is Mark’s only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).

FYI: I used Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for this response. I recommend it to all who desire to know why the modern translations made the changes they made.[url=http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-New-Testament/dp/1598561642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235353574&sr=8-1]Link to Book[/url]

 2009/2/22 22:42
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Actually, Walter, the "tree" of the KJV is not pure. It's a state Bible that had alterior motives behind it, and many Puritans knew that. The Geneva Bible was the people's Bible and was translated by Christians fleeing from persecution, it had nothing to do with any government, nor did it need any governments "authorization".

With care in Christ,
Taylor



_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2009/2/22 23:02Profile









 Re:




To TaylorOtwell:

Actually, there is not a dimes worth of difference between the King James Translation or the Geneva Bible Translation of the Koine Greek text passed down from the believing Church.

The true difference is found between the text passed down from the believing Church, that culminated in the Autorized King James Bible, compared to the corrupt text of the Gnostics, that was used to create the Catholic Bible, and then used in the 1881 New Testament of Westcott and Hort, and then used in ALL OF THE NEWER VERSIONS SINCE 1881---who have relied on the same corrupt Gnostic text.

In my previous post I listed a Brief History of the King James Bible and it’s Text.

Now, it is time to post the Text used to create the Catholic Bible and all modern translations that come from it:

[b]A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:[/b]
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

[b]Note the roots of corruption. [/b]

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, [b]"In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."[/b]

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.
Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

B. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels,[b] thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20). His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.[/b]

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B.[b] Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.[/b]

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B.He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E.[b] Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).[/b]

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)
A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

VII. Tischendorf (1869)
A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text.

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11

God bless,

Walter

Quote:

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Actually, Walter, the "tree" of the KJV is not pure. It's a state Bible that had alterior motives behind it, and many Puritans knew that. The Geneva Bible was the people's Bible and was translated by Christians fleeing from persecution, it had nothing to do with any government, nor did it need any governments "authorization".

With care in Christ,
Taylor



 2009/2/22 23:33





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy