Superiority of the King James Version

[hindsey]

I see when discussing the KJV issue that it always seems to jump all over the place. I would like to try to keep this thread to one part of the issue at a time. I want to do that by using Dr. D.A. Waite's "Fourfold Superiority of the King James Bible." I will list the four of them, and then comment briefly on the first one and would like to get discussion on the first one. If possible, after we have come to an agreement or an impasse on the first topic, then we'll move on to the second.

To keep on subject, I would like to avoid any posts that say, "This issue is a waste of time, just read whatever Bible you have, etc." Not all of the versions today are worth reading. For example, the Jehovah Witness version tries to take out the deity of Christ everywhere possible. I think it would not be good to read a version like that. This is the Word of God we're talking about, so I believe the study of which version is an important one.

The Fourfold Superiority:
1) The King James Bible has Superior TEXTS
2) The King James Bible has Superior TRANSLATORS
3) The King James Bible has Superior TECHNIQUE
4) The King James Bible has Superior THEOLOGY

If you want to read more on these, you can find a link to it at:
www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_king_james.htm
(Four reasons for defending the King James Bible)

So, #1, which I believe to be the crucial topic on this issue: Superior TEXTS.

That is, the text which the King James Bible was translated from were superior to the texts used in modern versions.

FACTS:
For the New Testament, the Textus Receptus was a compilation of the set of Greek manuscripts primarily used and the Old Testament, the Massoretic text was used to translate the KJV. For the modern versions, there are a couple to a few mansucripts that primarily are said to come from Alexandria, Egypt that have verses and passages omitted that are in the Textus Receptus.

There is a great majority of manuscripts in agreement with the Textus Receptus (well more than 5,000) and there are few manuscripts that differ from the Textus Receptus (Less than 10 to be safe).

The Alexandrian texts are considered to be the older manuscripts. However they were not in use throughout most of the Church Age. That is they were essentially lost or placed in storage for more than 1,000 years. Then they were re-discovered.

These differences, in which texts they were translated from, are the reasons that all the modern versions do not have verses that the KJV does have.

I don't believer that there will be any disagreements with these facts, but if there are, let me know.

So, I agree with DA Waite that the Textus Receptus, being essentially the text that was used throughout most of the Church Age, is the superior texts from which we should get our translation from. Let's let the discussion begin there...

And may God grant wisdom and grace to all who post - before they post

 

[Gold Dragon]

FACTS:
For the New Testament, the Textus Receptus was a compilation of the set of Greek manuscripts primarily used and the Old Testament, the Massoretic text was used to translate the KJV. For the modern versions, there are a couple to a few mansucripts that primarily are said to come from Alexandria, Egypt that have verses and passages omitted that are in the Textus Receptus.

The Alexandrian texts are considered to be the older manuscripts. However they were not in use throughout most of the Church Age. That is they were essentially lost or placed in storage for more than 1,000 years. Then they were re-discovered.

These differences, in which texts they were translated from, are the reasons that all the modern versions do not have verses that the KJV does have.

I don't believer that there will be any disagreements with these facts, but if there are, let me know.

The KJV is a wonderful translation.

I would agree with those facts, but disagree that they equate to the 3 primary manuscripts (and several secondary manuscripts) used by Erasmus et al to be the best manuscripts. They are certainly very good manuscripts.

There is a great majority of manuscripts in agreement with the Textus Receptus (well more than 5,000) and there are few manuscripts that differ from the Textus Receptus (Less than 10 to be safe).

I would disagree with this one. The TR does not completely agree with any single manuscript. It generally agrees with thousands of recent manuscripts and differs more significantly (but still in relatively minor ways) from a few older manuscripts (more than 10, less than 100).

 

[Knight]

Based on this argument the NKJV would be equally acceptable.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Hindsey

I listened to the debates on this issue with D.A. Waite and James White, his 3 premises were shown as being baselesswith in the relam of biblical history and other Greek texts and quotes of early christians from the Greek of the 2-5 century that is different from the TR's used by Erasmus. D.A Waite admits his conculsions are based on Faith and that his fine by me. The question that remains is not so much what D.A Waite believes, but on what basis he comes to that belief out side of historical proofs.

Their theology was on track seeing they where belivers of the historical nature of the Scripture that some call Calvinism.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Here is some great info on the Translations though the ages I like the Geneva Bible the KJV is 95% in line with the Standard of it's time not to shabby. I often wondered if the Margin notes in the 1611 KJV would make it the same as The Geneva Bible, given the inclusion of the some 400 variants of understanding of the text from the Greek?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Jesusong]

The TR was based on only 6 or 7 mss. and those not going beyond the 11th century. The older Alexandrian mss agree with the later mss have with few minor variations, and absent from these earlier mss are the additional material found in the later mss that crept in through the centuries with no ill intent involved. I wouldn't go as far as saying that they were re-discovered. But is is discoveries like these that show us what the early church had for scriptures, andis useful to us as we bring our texts in conformity with what was actually written in the 1st century.

 

[Shok]

An over simplified summary of my current position: The TR is a milestone of many in Bibliogy. The Alexandrian, Vaticanus and Sinius is just a blip that appeard in the 1400s. It has no lineage it just appeared. The first clues it even existed were found in the trash where it possibly belongs.

My opinion may change as I will continue to study this in the near future.

Thanks,

Shok

 

[hindsey]

I've run out of time... I'll have to apologize and drop out of the thread. Feel free to keep it going if anyone's interested.

 

[Logos1560]

2) The King James Bible has Superior TRANSLATORS

How were the Church of England translators of the KJV supposed to be superior to all other translators?

Were the KJV translators more doctrinally sound than all other translators or than any other group of translators?

 

[FallingWaters]

The Fourfold Superiority:
1) The King James Bible has Superior TEXTS
2) The King James Bible has Superior TRANSLATORS
3) The King James Bible has Superior TECHNIQUE
4) The King James Bible has Superior THEOLOGY

So, #1, which I believe to be the crucial topic on this issue: Superior TEXTS.

That is, the text which the King James Bible was translated from were superior to the texts used in modern versions.

FACTS:
For the New Testament, the Textus Receptus was a compilation of the set of Greek manuscripts primarily used and the Old Testament, the Massoretic text was used to translate the KJV. For the modern versions, there are a couple to a few mansucripts that primarily are said to come from Alexandria, Egypt that have verses and passages omitted that are in the Textus Receptus.

There is a great majority of manuscripts in agreement with the Textus Receptus (well more than 5,000) and there are few manuscripts that differ from the Textus Receptus (Less than 10 to be safe).

The Alexandrian texts are considered to be the older manuscripts. However they were not in use throughout most of the Church Age. That is they were essentially lost or placed in storage for more than 1,000 years. Then they were re-discovered.

These differences, in which texts they were translated from, are the reasons that all the modern versions do not have verses that the KJV does have.

I don't believe that there will be any disagreements with these facts, but if there are, let me know.

So, I agree with DA Waite that the Textus Receptus, being essentially the text that was used throughout most of the Church Age, is the superior texts from which we should get our translation from. Let's let the discussion begin there...

And may God grant wisdom and grace to all who post - before they post

I'm afraid I disagree with what has been said about the superiority of the Textus Receptus.

I have studied this subject in great depth recently. I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the Critical Text as the most closely accurate to the original autographs.

I will say that no Christian doctrine is compromised or affected by the differences in any of the original manuscripts, so in the end, it makes no doctrinal difference which Hebrew and Greek manuscripts a Bible is translated from.

"...the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version..."
Bible-Researcher.com

 

[FallingWaters]

Wow. I just noticed, this thread was started almost 2 years ago! ()

 

[FallingWaters]

How were the Church of England translators of the KJV supposed to be superior to all other translators?

Were the KJV translators more doctrinally sound than all other translators or than any other group of translators?

No.
Control-z

 

[Ave Maria]

The King James Version is a good Bible to read but it is not perfect and it is not the only Bible in English that is acceptable to read.

 

[Logos1560]

Like D. A. Waite, other KJV-only advocates claim superiority for the KJV. For example, Herb Evans stated: "The KJB superiority over these versions is self evident."

Do such statements claim or imply that the KJV is completely superior at every rendering or do they only suggest that the KJV is overall superior to any other English translation?

Since a translation that is superior overall could still have some poor renderings that are less accurate and even some translating errors, it is likely that superiority of every rendering of every verse is being implied.

Is there clear evidence to support a claim that the KJV is superior in every rendering of every verse to any other English translation?

The KJV-only claims of KJV superiority over all other English translations seems to give the KJV-only view the burden of proof to show that each and every rendering of the KJV is superior and more accurate than any rendering of other English translations. Attempting to claim that a KJV rendering is possible or that the KJV rendering is not a proven error would not be valid evidence to support the KJV-only claim of superiority.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i'm looking for a good KJV-o thread to find out more about:

I could use some help understanding someone's position.

first, it comes from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30119568&postcount=24

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!


Like I said, without Powerpoint or some other tool, it's very hard to explain deep things. Let's make up a scenario:

OT = A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P
NT = Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z

96 AD --- Z is written, completing the Scriptures.

100 AD --- A thru Z written in Koine Greek.

350 AD --- A thru Z written in Gothic Language.

700 AD --- A thru Z written in Anglo-Saxon.

c. 700 AD --- MT appears --- has A thru Z with some of P & Q missing (but "pretty close") --- users of AV700 Anglo-Saxon ROFL.

1000 AD --- MT dies of old age --- no one really using it.

1389 AD --- A thru Z written by John Wycliffe

c. 1516 --- Textus Receptus appears --- users of Wycliffe Version ROFL

Eventually the 1611 King James Version appears as a replacement to either the AV1587 Geneva Bible, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible.

King James translators did use parts of TR, but only as a reference tool --- not as a source document. The source document itself would have been either the AV1587 Geneva, or the AV1568 Bishops' Bible - (God's choice for the Pilgrims to America).

here is the context:

The Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are Scripture.

First of all --- it's not an "ideologue" --- it's plain blasphemy --- specifically, it's a form of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" --- by attributing an [inerrant] work of the Holy Ghost to the [errant] works of man.

Second of all --- that statement caught me off-guard. I've never met a person who considered the Masoretic Text and/or Textus Receptus as Scripture.

Thirdly --- I've gotten over it --- and now consider myself somewhat "anesthetized" to it. Christians are supposed to get upset --- but they have a duty to get over it, too.

wow. i've never heard anyone claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts are not Scripture!!!

i even quoted a 400 year old confession that forms the bases for Presbyterian theology in the US to illustrate this point. It is not only a common point but is the common basis for the inerrantist position in the US conservative churches. The original Greek and Hebrew autographs, the closest we have to these is the MT for the OT and the UBS Greek or TR depending on some other issues.

I suspect you are getting upset over nothing, KJV-o is a small movement with rather limited geographical and temporal extent, the majority of Protestants since the Reformation would assent to the statement "the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus are authentic Scripture".

i am not particularly happy to have disturbed you but as you can see from the quote from the WCF, this is the standard position of my church.

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]

The KJV is a translation, if the underlying Hebrew and Greek did not exist then the translation can not exist. That appears to be logical and significant reasoning. God did not reveal the KJV to those translators, at the most He could have helped them translate the MT and the TR properly into English, but there is no evidence nor any claim that they got a supernatural text from God that they translated independently from the MT and TR.

I don't wish to discuss the KJV-only movement. What i need help on is identifying where this person gets the set of ideas he identifies as:

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James Version

The Septuagint, Vulgate, Luther, Gutenberg, Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, or my bible software were not supernaturally created.

the original discussion at CF was deleted it is still available for context at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...othic+bible&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8


it is obvious that he knows next to nothing about either textual criticism or the history of the English Bible. My immediate problem is to identify where or from whom he is getting this really funny (not as in ha ha) ideas.

thanks.

addendum:
the continuing saga of this poster, boy i need professional help to get involved in this *grin*

Second though, would be the TR and MT - but they weren't prompted by God to be written, they were probably motivated by the love of money.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30129393&postcount=35

continuing study yields:

As for his list, it looks like he's claiming that the Bible is "transmitted" into some common or parent translation, and used until hardly anyone speaks that dialect anymore, when God then uses some scholar like Wycliffe to "transmit" the text from old Anglo-Saxon into Old English.


i can't seem to find anyone online making this same argument. curious i wonder if it is a single church or a single "Bible teacher" at the source?

addendum:

we've been given these references:

In Awe of Thy Word, by Gail A. Riplinger

The Christians Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, by Peter S. Ruckman

Final Authority, by William P. Grady

anyone read them or have access that can tell me if:
any one of these references refers to these two unique ideas that:
(1)the MT and TR are not Scripture
(2)and that there exists this line of documents:

AV100 Koine Greek Version
AV330 Gothic Version
AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
AV1389 Wycliffe Version
AV1530 Tyndale Version
AV1568 Bishops' Bible
AV1587 Geneva Bible
AV1611 King James Version

as a supernatural inspired set?


with these references:

bingo

Brief preview of Chapter 16
This is the only history of the Bible that is built almost entirely from the time-buried words of old Bibles, their texts, their prologues, and the eye-witness reports of history’s great Christians, translators, and martyrs. This is an all-new history of the text itself; it proves wrong many of the time-fogged imaginations of modern writers. This and upcoming chapters [of] this book will document the never-before-seen footsteps of the early pre-English scriptures - from the disciples (1st century), century by century, to Wycliffe (14th century) - through direct quotations from the men who actually lived during these times: Tertullian (200s), Gildas (500s), Bede (700s), Asser (800s), William of Malmesbury (1100s), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (700-1200s), and John Foxe (1500s). In these pages this author will share the extraordinary blessing one receives by reading, not about old Bibles and great martyrs, but reading their very words. The English Bible’s seven purifications are covered, including,
•• The Gothic
•• The Anglo-Saxon
•• The Pre-Wycliffe
•• The Wycliffe
•• The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
•• The Bishops’
•• The King James Bible

from: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/inaweofthyword.html
the source is:
IN AWE OF THY WORD
by G. A. Riplinger

looks like the outline of his main ideas are here.

anyone familiar with this particular work?

It might be that his point that the MT and TR are not Scripture is a personal misunderstanding. From reading: http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/inaweofthyword.html
i don't see any immediate problems with a denial that the Hebrew and Greek are the original languages.

are any of these 3 references above worth getting?
none in my local libraries and none cheap used in Amazon.

found:
Which Bible Is God's Word? (Paperback)
by G. A. Riplinger

Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible (Hardcover)
by William P. Grady

are both affordable, the rest are $20 plus.

any recommendations? (other than doing something worthwhile today with my time, rather than debating a KJV-o)

i found a useful links list at:
http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

 

[Logos1560]

As for his list, it looks like he's claiming that the Bible is "transmitted" into some common or parent translation, and used until hardly anyone speaks that dialect anymore, when God then uses some scholar like Wycliffe to "transmit" the text from old Anglo-Saxon into Old English.

anyone read them or have access that can tell me if:
any one of these references refers to these two unique ideas that:
(1)the MT and TR are not Scripture
(2)and that there exists this line of documents:
as a supernatural inspired set?
source is:
IN AWE OF THY WORD by G. A. Riplinger

looks like the outline of his main ideas are here.

anyone familiar with this particular work?

are any of these 3 references above worth getting?

Which Bible Is God's Word? (Paperback)
by G. A. Riplinger

Final Authority: A Christian's Guide to the King James Bible (Hardcover) by William P. Grady

I have copies of the books you mention and have read them. By the way, G. A. Riplinger is a woman [Gail Riplinger]. These books are not very reliable and accurate in their claims. These books are not worth getting unless you are researching the inaccurate claims of the KJV-only view.

Gail Riplinger wrote: “In the main, the Bishops’ Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles” (In Awe, p. 567). She proposed that “the Bishops’ Bible is the textual twin of the KJV” (p. 164). She observed: The KJV translators generally followed the grammatical elements and word order (syntax) of the Bishops’ Bible. This was their foundation and they seldom varied from it” (p. 132). She also commented: “Both the Bishops’ and the KJV are literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text and show all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). She claimed that “the words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (p. 859). Riplinger maintained that she did a “word-for-word collation of earlier English Bibles with the KJV,” which suggests that she should be aware of the renderings of the Bishops’ Bible (p. 17).

While the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible, there are many differences in translating between the two of them.

 

[Logos1560]

any recommendations?

A couple other good web sites to check for information about the KJV-only view are the following:

www.kjv-only.com/

www.kjvonly.org/

 

[VCViking]

ttt

 

[Logos1560]

when God then uses some scholar like Wycliffe to "transmit" the text from old Anglo-Saxon into Old English.

The old Wycliffe’s Bible is included on the good line or preserved stream made by some KJV-only authors. Cimino suggested that Wycliffe’s Bible of 1382 came “from the same type of Greek text” as the KJV (The Book, p. 14). David Cloud listed Wycliffe’s as part of the heritage of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). Cloud wrote that “the foundation for the English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible of 1384” (p. 532). Cloud noted: “In English, the Word of God was preserved prior to 1611 with some impurities in the Wycliffe version based on Latin from 1384” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). He described it as “a good Bible with plain, powerful language” (p. 96). Cloud commented: “Though Wycliffe translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek, his translation was good” (pp. 170-171). Laurence Vance wrote that “Wycliffe did his translating from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate” (Brief History, p. 6; King James, His Bible, p. 78). Gail Riplinger claimed that it is a myth that the Wycliffe Bible came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (In Awe, pp. 773, 788-789).


Geddes MacGregor pointed out that Wycliffe’s “was enormously popular, attaining an astonishing circulation for a book issued before the days of printing” (Literary History, p. 79). It is not known how much of the translating was actually done by John Wycliffe. MacGregor noted that “to Nicholas of Hereford is to be attributed the greater part of the translation into English of the Old Testament in the manuscript in the Bodleian Library, Oxford” (p. 78). Deanesly maintained “that one person [John Purvey] wrote the General Prologue [to the Old Testament], and that he edited also the second version of the Wycliffite Bible” (Lollard Bible, pp. 266, 377). David Daniell suggested that John Trevisa was a translator of “the later improved edition” of Wycliffe’s Bible (Bible in English, pp. 91-95). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “as for the Wycliffe Bible being translated from the Old Latin, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and is in fact a very literal translation from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, April, 1994, p. 94). MacGregor also maintained that the Wycliffe Bible “follows it [the Latin Vulgate] very closely” (Literary History, p. 79). Weigle wrote: “The first version of the Wyclif Bible was a careful literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, with the English words following the order of the Latin words as closely as possible” (N. T. Octapla, p. xv).


Ruckman included on his good tree Wycliffe's Bible, which was based on the Latin Vulgate that is on his corrupt tree. How can a supposed "corrupt" text produce a good Bible that was used by God? John Wycliffe wrote: “Regarding Jerome’s translation, it seems fitting that it be approved as much by the sanctity of his life . . . as by his expertise in the Hebrew language and the complete agreement of his translation with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts” (Levy, John Wyclif, p. 157). Wycliffe also noted: “One need not believe that St. Jerome’s translation is free from error” (p. 156). Wycliffe's Bible included the Apocrypha and in the New Testament adds the epistle of Laodiceans. Considering the fact that Ruckman, Ray, Carter, Cummons, Cimino, Steward, and Bradley listed Wycliffe's Bible as a good Bible even though it translated Matthew 3:2 as "Saying, Do ye penance" (The Gospels, p. 11 and John Wycliff and the English Bible, p. 92), why should any believer trust their inconsistent and uninspired opinions?


Along with its use at Matthew 3:2, this rendering "penance" is also found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given.


Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”


This Bible rendered the Latin Vulgate at Psalm 23:1a as follows: "Our Lord governeth me." At Genesis 36:24, Wycliffe's has "hot waters" as does the Douay-Rheims instead of "mules," the KJV rendering. Some of the examples in the above paragraphs showed that Wycliffe's Bible included some Vulgate readings in its text. MacGregor confirmed that the translation in the Wycliffe Bible follows the text of the Latin Vulgate “very closely” (Literary History, p. 79). This evidence also suggests that Wycliffe’s differs more from the KJV than does Webster's, the NKJV, the MKJV, KJ21, or KJ2000. The fact that many KJV-only advocates can accept Wycliffe’s Bible when it differs more from the KJV than some present English translations points out serious inconsistencies in KJV-only reasoning.

 

[plmarquette]

the right book to buy/use is the one(s) that your pastor preaches/teaches from ....

KJV/ NKJV / AMPLIFIED / NAS / NRAS / DR/ NAB ... ETC.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the right book to buy/use is the one(s) that your pastor preaches/teaches from ....

KJV/ NKJV / AMPLIFIED / NAS / NRAS / DR/ NAB ... ETC.

why?

is his the pulpit Bible?
or the same as Bibles in the pews?
or the same as all Bible study and Sunday School leaders in this church?
how about the denomination? do all pastors in this denomination use the same Bible?
why the uniformity?