The King James Version or NCV, RSV or NIV, does it make a difference?

[reddogs]

There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text. The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing by these unknown person(s) to take out whatever they disagree with or doesn't fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters or missing whole books, or worse. So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the changed Alexandrian manuscripts or Alexandrian codices.

From what I have come across it seems that the Textus Receptus, also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. The Minority Text of the Alexandrian manuscripts were clearly and thoroughly useless because of the outright changes and what can only be called a corruption of the original text

Here is a good description of how the corruptions were looked at in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

-Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

-Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in
Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout. Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...." http://www.ecclesia.org...

Now for centuries the Textus Receptus was the standard and the KJV along with many others used it as the basis of their version:
"Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
"Coverdale Bible 1535.
"Matthew Bible 1537.
"Great Bible 1539.
"Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
"Bishops' Bible 1568.

Then late in the 1800's two Anglican churchmen, Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on them. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Most of the new modern translations have picked this corrupted version and so are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT).

These corrupted Alexandrian texts were used by Westcott & Hort's as they knowingly made a translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.

 

[tienkhoanguyen]

"REVELATION chapter 1 verse 11"

I am Alpha and Omega
the first and the last: and What thou seest write in a book and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus and unto Smyrna and unto Pergamos and unto Thyatira and unto Sardi and unto Philadelphia and unto Laodicea.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Already asked and answered.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text. The problem is that it is not a 'different translation', it basically is editing by these unknown person(s) to take out whatever they disagree with or doesn't fit with their doctrine or traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters or missing whole books, or worse. So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Many of the new modern versions such as the NIV and others are based on a few corrupted manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text, many which can be traced back to their original source, the changed Alexandrian manuscripts or Alexandrian codices.

From what I have come across it seems that the Textus Receptus, also called the Byzantine Text is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. The manuscripts were brought together by many were faithful to its text such as Lucian, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus. When the Protestant Reformers decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document and for good reason. The Minority Text of the Alexandrian manuscripts were clearly and thoroughly useless because of the outright changes and what can only be called a corruption of the original text

Here is a good description of how the corruptions were looked at in the book LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton which gives a easy to understand explanation...

"...There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

-Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

-Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Alexandrian manuscripts, such as the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus the Majority Text."

The Minority Texts were corrupted by Egyptian Gnosticism mostly in
Alexandria with many changes, which are mostly deletions. The Gnostics were a group that did not believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was resurrected to heaven, that Jesus was the Creator, or that Jesus made atonement for our sins.

There are many alterations in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text), the Codex Alexandrian, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years.

The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures and contradict themselves throughout. Here is some more background on the corruption of the Minority Text from another site....

"...almost all modern English bibles translated since 1898 are based on the Minority Text (this includes the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, the New Century Version, the Good News Bible, etc.). These bible versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts in existence, or about .1% of all manuscripts, which is why it's also known as the "Minority text.".

The two most prominent manuscripts of the Minority Texts are the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus....These Minority Texts frequently disagreed with each other as well as with the Majority Text, and also contained many obvious and flagrant mistakes. Up until the late 1800s, the Minority Texts were utterly rejected by Christians.

The fact that these two manuscripts may have been older does not prove they are better. More likely it indicates that they were set aside because of their numerous errors....

The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible...."

"...One of the manuscripts that make up the Minority Text is the Vaticanus. The Vaticanus was found in 1481 in the Vatican library. The other manuscript is the Sinaiticus. The Sinaiticus was found in 1844 in a trash pile at Saint Catherine's monastery, and rescued from a long (and well-deserved) obscurity. It has a great number of omissions and has many words and phrases marked out and re-written. Both of these manuscripts are from Roman Catholic origin...." http://www.ecclesia.org...

Now for centuries the Textus Receptus was the standard and the KJV along with many others used it as the basis of their version:
"Tyndale New Testament 1526-1530.
"Coverdale Bible 1535.
"Matthew Bible 1537.
"Great Bible 1539.
"Geneva Bible 1560-1644.
"Bishops' Bible 1568.

Then late in the 1800's two Anglican churchmen, Westcott & Hort picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts and created a version based on them. Westcott & Hort picked up on these corrupted Alexandrian texts as they supported views prevalent in their time from Darwinism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity, if just a few verse could be altered or brought into question, it would serve their purpose. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Most of the new modern translations have picked this corrupted version and so are based on the Westcott & Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT).

These corrupted Alexandrian texts were used by Westcott & Hort's as they knowingly made a translation of what was a changed or heavily edited & thus corrupted Alexandrian translation of a Greek original.

dang I thought you needed an answer to a question but you already know the answer haha. I personally don't like NIV though becuase when you read it it makes you feel like JESUS is some amigo or something idk. It just seems light and "cute" to me.

 

[Dave-W]

There are only 2 streams of Bible versions, the true text of the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) on which the King James Version is based, and those which picked up the Alexandrian manuscripts (Minority Text),

Only two? Really?

What about the Peshita/Syriac (in Aramaic) which was separated from the Greek text long before the separation of those 2 families; and has remained untouched by the western (catholic) church? George Lamsa made a very good English translation from the Peshita - oldest versions he could find (just as old as the most ancient Greek manuscripts) and as a native Aramaic speaker, was able to explain the idioms and word plays that are lost in the Greek texts.

 

[tampasteve]

I am not saying that i disagree per-se, but can you please expound on this:

which have been shown to have deleted and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text.

It seems to me that one could easily change it around to be speaking of the Textus Receptus

which have been shown to have added and changed many parts of the text and are unreliable to say the least and purposely corrupted at some key text.

Yes, it has "been shown" to be missing parts or have parts changed compared to the other manuscripts available, but we have no real way of knowing that it was not the Textus Receptus that has the parts added and changed in it. Proving that the KJV has extra words does not inherently prove that the RSV (or whatever) is incorrect, it simply shows that the underlying manuscripts have different contents, to a point.

Without actual evidence of which manuscript is truly the correct one, and which may have been adjusted or just missing parts, we must examine scripture in light of both sets, IMO. It would seem this is the position of the SDA church as they seem to use NLT, RSV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and problably other, but those I have seen.

 

[Gary K]

I am not saying that i disagree per-se, but can you please expound on this:

It seems to me that one could easily change it around to be speaking of the Textus Receptus

Yes, it has "been shown" to be missing parts or have parts changed compared to the other manuscripts available, but we have no real way of knowing that it was not the Textus Receptus that has the parts added and changed in it. Proving that the KJV has extra words does not inherently prove that the RSV (or whatever) is incorrect, it simply shows that the underlying manuscripts have different contents, to a point.

Without actual evidence of which manuscript is truly the correct one, and which may have been adjusted or just missing parts, we must examine scripture in light of both sets, IMO. It would seem this is the position of the SDA church as they seem to use NLT, RSV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, and problably other, but those I have seen.

I'm not aware of too many SDAs that use the NLT, at least not traditional SDAs. I use a bunch of different versions of the Bible. The King James is my starting point, but I also use the ESV, NET, YLT, LITV, and at least 7 or 8 others on a fairly regular basis. I use them where I find the KJV wording to be a little too obscure for me.

There is only one version that I know of that I will never use, The Open Bible. It is loosely based upon the Twentieth Century New Testament. The committee that produced this had a political agenda in making it. They were all dedicated Marxists who wanted a version of the NT that teaches their political ideology, and the guy responsible for putting the committee together to create this version was a co-founder of the Jesus Seminar which holds absolutely satanic views of Christ. So do many of the people on the committee. They started out with a political agenda and they accomplished their purpose.

 

[tampasteve]

I'm not aware of too many SDAs that use the NLT, at least not traditional SDAs. I use a bunch of different versions of the Bible. The King James is my starting point, but I also use the ESV, NET, YLT, LITV, and at least 7 or 8 others on a fairly regular basis. I use them where I find the KJV wording to be a little too obscure for me.

There is only one version that I know of that I will never use, The Open Bible. It is loosely based upon the Twentieth Century New Testament. The committee that produced this had a political agenda in making it. They were all dedicated Marxists who wanted a version of the NT that teaches their political ideology, and the guy responsible for putting the committee together to create this version was a co-founder of the Jesus Seminar which holds absolutely satanic views of Christ. So do many of the people on the committee. They started out with a political agenda and they accomplished their purpose.

Yeah, there is one SDA church near me that seems to use the NLT in their sermons. Personally I use the NKJV, KJV, NIV, and ESV the most for study, as well as the Artscroll Tanach. Recently I have been using a Amazing Facts Study Bible that is NKJV, so far I like it.

 

[reddogs]

Only two? Really?

What about the Peshita/Syriac (in Aramaic) which was separated from the Greek text long before the separation of those 2 families; and has remained untouched by the western (catholic) church? George Lamsa made a very good English translation from the Peshita - oldest versions he could find (just as old as the most ancient Greek manuscripts) and as a native Aramaic speaker, was able to explain the idioms and word plays that are lost in the Greek texts.

That is one that was picked up and used and is part of the Majority Text. Basically anything that used the Alexandrian Text is the one that is problematic and the NIV and all the versions based on this text are basically word for word copies, I have the list. I will look for it...

 

[reddogs]

Here is what I posted....Here is the line of the various versions which followed the reading of the Textus Receptus and you can see why the Waldensians were persecuted and their Bibles and manuscripts burned as they showed that the Roman church was not following the truth.

These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]
Home - EarthLink Mobile

THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Masoretic Text

1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text

THE NEW TESTAMENT

All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)

30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)

There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that had the ancient manunscripts pf the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.

This Received Text as the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) was also known, was soon translated into a old Latin version before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible which kept on until the 1650s, by which time the Reformation had come full force on the scene. So the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise in Psalms...


Psalm 12:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[reddogs]

I came across a site that showed which version was based on what...



American Standard Version

Modern English 1901 Masoretic Text, Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


American King James Version

Modern English 1999 Revision of the King James Version


Amplified Bible

Modern English 1965 Revision of the American Standard Version


An American Translation

Modern English 1935 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1996 Masoretic Text


An American Translation

Modern English 1976 Masoretic Text, various[which?] Greek texts.


Berkeley Version

Modern English 1958


Bible in English

Modern English 1949


The Bible in Living English

Modern English 1972


Bishops' Bible

Early Modern English 1568 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Catholic Public Domain Version

Modern English 2009 Sixtus V and Clement VIII Latin Vulgate


Children's King James Version

Modern English 1962 Revision of the King James Version.


Christian Community Bible, English version

Modern English 1986 Hebrew and Greek


Clear Word Bible

Modern English 1994


Complete Jewish Bible

Modern English 1998 Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament).


Contemporary English Version

Modern English 1995


Concordant Literal Version

Modern English Restored Greek syntax. A concordance of every form of every Greek word was made and systematized and turned into English. The whole Greek vocabulary was analyzed and translated, using a standard English equivalent for each Greek element.


A Conservative Version

Modern English 2005


Coverdale Bible

Early Modern English
1535 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Vulgate, and German and Swiss-German Bibles (Luther Bible, Zürich Bible and Leo Jud's Bible)


Darby Bible

Modern English 1890 Masoretic Text, various critical editions of the Greek text (i.a. Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort)


Douay-Rheims Bible

Early Modern English
1582 (New Testament)
1609–1610 (Old Testament) Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts


Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)

Modern English 1752 Clementine Vulgate


EasyEnglish Bible

Modern English 2001 Wycliffe Associates (UK)


Easy-to-Read Version

Modern English 1989 Textus Receptus, United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text, Nestle-Aland Text


Emphasized Bible

Modern English 1902 Translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham based on The New Testament in the Original Greek and Christian David Ginsburg's Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894)


English Jubilee 2000 Bible

Modern English 2000 Reina-Valera (1602 Edition)


English Standard Version

Modern English 2001 Revision of the Revised Standard Version. (Westcott-Hort, Weiss, Tischendorf Greek texts)


Ferrar Fenton Bible

Modern English 1853 Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text


Geneva Bible

Early Modern English
1557 (New Testament)
1560 (complete Bible) Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


God's Word

Modern English 1995


Good News Bible

Modern English 1976 United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text


Great Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible.


Holman Christian Standard Bible

Modern English 2004 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text.


The Inclusive Bible

Modern English 2007 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek


International Standard Version

Modern English 2011


Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1966 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


Jesus' Disciples Bible

Early Modern English 2012 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1917 Masoretic Text


Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).

Modern English1963 Masoretic Text


Julia E. Smith Parker Translation

Modern English 1876 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


King James 2000 Version

Modern English 2000 Revision of the King James Version.


King James Easy Reading Version

Modern English 2010 Revision of the King James Version. The Received Text.


King James Version

Early Modern English 1611 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Tyndale 1526 NT, some Erasmus manuscripts, and Bezae 1598 TR.


King James II Version

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Knox's Translation of the Vulgate

Modern English 1955 Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.


Lamsa Bible

Modern English 1933 Syriac Pesh*tta


A Literal Translation of the Bible

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus (Estienne 1550)


Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


The Living Bible

Modern English 1971


American Standard Version (paraphrase)


The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1994 Masoretic Text


Matthew's Bible

Early Modern English1537 Masoretic Text, the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version[which?].


The Message

Modern English 2002


Modern King James Version

Modern English 1990 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Modern Language Bible

Modern English 1969


Moffatt, New Translation

Modern English 1926


James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh*tta

Modern English Syriac Pesh*tta


New American Bible

Modern English 1970


New American Standard Bible

Modern English 1971 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Text


New Century Version

Modern English 1991


New English Bible

Modern English 1970 Masoretic Text, Greek New Testament


New English Translation (NET Bible)

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek New Testament


New International Reader's Version

Modern English 1998 New International Version (simplified syntax, but loss of conjunctions obscures meanings)


New International Version Inclusive Language Edition

Modern English 1996 Revision of the New International Version.


New International Version

Modern English 1978 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (based on Westcott-Hort, Weiss and Tischendorf, 1862).


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jerusalem Bible

Modern English 1985 From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem.


New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)

Modern English 1985 Masoretic Text


New King James Version

Modern English 1982 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Majority text (Hodges-Farstad, 1982)


New Life Version

Modern English 1986


New Living Translation

Modern English 1996


New Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1989 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Modern English 1950 (New Testament)
1960 (single volume complete Bible)
1984 (reference edition with footnotes)
Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Hebrew J documents, as well as various other families of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts


The Orthodox Study Bible

Modern English 2008 Adds a new translation of the LXX to an existing translation of the NKJV in a single volume.


Quaker Bible

Modern English 1764 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Recovery Version of the Bible

Modern English1985 Revision of the American Standard Version and Darby Bible.


Revised Version

Modern English1885 Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857


Revised Standard Version

Modern English 1952 Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Modern English 1966 Revision of the Revised Standard Version.


Revised English Bible

Modern English 1987 Revision of the New English Bible.


The Scriptures

Modern English & Hebrew (Divine Names) 1993, revised 1998 & revised 2009 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica), Textus Receptus Greek text
Popular Messianic Translation by the Institute for Scripture Research


Simplified English Bible

Modern English.


The Story Bible

Modern English 1971 A summary/paraphrase, by Pearl S. Buck


Taverner's Bible

Early Modern English 1539 Minor revision of Matthew's Bible


Thomson's Translation

Modern English 1808 Codex Vaticanus (according to the introduction in the reprint edition by S. F. Pells) of the Septuagint (but excluding the Apocrypha) and of the New Testament


Today's New International Version

Modern English 2005 Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1983), Nestle-Aland Greek text Revision of the New International Version.


Third Millennium Bible

Modern English 1998 Revision of the King James Version.


Tyndale Bible

Early Modern English 1526 (New Testament) 1530 (Pentateuch) Masoretic Text, Erasmus' third NT edition (1522), Martin Luther's 1522 German Bible. Incomplete translation. Tyndale's other Old Testament work went into the Matthew's Bible (1537).


Updated King James Version

Modern English 2004


A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures

Modern English 2003 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus


Webster's Revision

Modern English1833 Revision of the King James Version.


Westminster Bible

Modern English 1936 Greek and Hebrew


The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible[4]

Modern English 2010 Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. Released into the public domain by The Work of God's Children (nonprofit corporation)


Wycliffe's Bible (1380)

Middle English 1380 Latin Vulgate


Wycliffe's Bible (1388)

Middle English 1388 Latin Vulgate


Young's Literal Translation

Modern English 1862 Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus

 

[reddogs]

Jerome was a true believer and when he wrote the Vulgate tried to use only the original Hebrew text (or Masoretic Text) or Greek text from the Textus Receptus (Majority Text) but the Roman church leaders forced the Apocrypha and some text from the Septuagint which was really from the Alexandrian codices which were in Greek, but its source was well hidden. Jerome spent the rest of his life exiled from Rome, defending his use of the true text and indirectly condeming the corrupted text or non Canon, the Apocrypha forced on him. So the Vulgate allowed some of the partial corruption of the Alexandrian codices and of course the non Canon of the Apocrypha, and you see how the Roman Catholic church used it to allow many false beliefs and doctrines including idol worship. So if it says Textus Receptus (Majority Text) it is true to the many manuscripts that Christians used over the centuries, if it has Vulgate, Septuagint, Wescott and Hort (or its many variants such asNestle-Aland text, editions of Tischendorf, etc..), then it uses the Minority Text or allows partial text from it, which comes from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts.

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he identified them as apocrypha which infuriated the Roman church leaders. Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books which he clearly tried to keep out. He knew the true text from the corrupted ones, and fought to keep only the true text, it was important to him as it should be to us......Now lets look at another issue which most people have not come across. The "Septuagint" and its origin, I came across some interesting things that I want to give everyone here to go over and comment.

The Septuagint is a ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and it is claimed that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the Hebrew text of the Jewish scriptures. So they seek to give the Septuagint legitamcy from Christ himself, but the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be. Well lets back up a bit and see what is its origin. The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitimacy. But why is this important to them...

This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was refering to.

So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism phoilisophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts?

Now the Alexandrian manuscripts which the Septuagint shows itself to be, makes it the same basic text as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are part of a group of texts which are considered the "Minority" Texts, because they were not accepted into the mainstream as the texts were not in agreement with the manuscripts used by the majority of Christians and even these two texts do not even agree with one another. So they were considered unusable or corrupted text by Christians, yet in the 1800's two men, Westcott and Hort put together their version of the Greek New Testament text from the Minority Text which included Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Since Westcott and Horts version another revision was created called the Nestle/Aland. Nearly all of the new translations of the Bible are based upon one of these two Greek New Testaments and not the Textus Receptus. That means that the newer versions of the Bible are based on 5% of the manuscripts in stark contrast to 90% of the manuscripts which the KJV and older Bibles are based on.

The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

In the world today, there only really exists two classes of Bibles; those based upon the Textus Receptus and those based upon the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments. If a person has a New International Version, New American Standard Version, or Revised Standard Version, he is reading from the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Greek New Testaments that are only supported by 5% of the existing manuscripts since they use as their basis the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or the Alexandrian codices.

When we understand the differences between the texts, all we have left to do is decide which source we find to be the most trustworthy--the Majority Text, from which the Kings James Bible comes and the scribes who did the text did a word for word translation, or the corrupted Alexandrian/Minority texts, which is the source material for almost every new Bible version since Westcott/Hort came out with their version....

 

[reddogs]

Now lets go back to give a explanation of who Westcott and Hort were, then go into Wescott's and Hort's Greek translation of the Bible and how Hort and Westcott persuaded scholars of the Revision Committee to switch to the corrupted Alexandrian text for the new version which became the basis of many Bibles now being used.

Westcott 12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) and Hort (23 April 1828 – 30 November 1892) were Anglican theologians who exerted influence on the members of the Bible commitee for revising the translation being done at that time which forms the basis of most modern versions.The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively which was based on the Textus Receptus and had done so almost from when it first came out.The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It also became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean.The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. Then there was a rise of Darwinism and Humanism by the 1870's, and a challenge arose in the English world to the primacy of the King James Bible and by extension the Textus Receptus it was based on. This challenge came from men who were officially Protestants: Church of England Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott and Cambridge University Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort.

The crux of Westcott and Hort's theory was that the New Testament was preserved in almost perfect condition in two manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. (The Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Momentary near Mt. Sinai in 1844 and the Vaticanus was first documented in the Vatican library in 1475 and was 'rediscovered' in 1845.)

Westcott and Hort, abhored the King James Bible and even after its widespread use now declare it an inferior translation. Westcott and Hort determined to replace the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus. In short, their theory was that for fifteen hundred years the preserved Word of God was lost until it was recovered in the nineteenth century in a trash can and in the Vatican Library.

Hort showed a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. So this supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which formed the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.

Hort did not have a single historical reference to support taht the Lucian Recension took place. He simply theorized that it must have taken place so the Textus Receptus must be discarded. In spite of the fact that there is not a single historical reference to the Lucian Recension, but it became held as fact.

The great textual scholar of the time, Dean John Burgon, referred to Westcott and Hort’s "violent recoil from the Traditional Text" and "their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text". He refers to their theory as "superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents."

Another famed textual scholar and contemporary of Westcott and Hort, F.H.P. Scrivener wrote, "Dr. Hort’s system therefore is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it; but then he would persuade us, as he persuaded himself..."

Now here is some of the ideas that show the bent of these men:
Hort:

1. Was a follower of Darwin...in other words, he believed in Evolution.
2. Did not believe in blood atonement. What a surprise that the NIV removes 'through his blood' in Col.1:14.
3. Doubted angels were for real.
4. Was pondering several degrees of salvation. Thats why the newer versions always say 'are being saved' or 'were saved' but unlike the KJB which says we 'ARE SAVED'.
5. Rejected an eternal hell. Maybe thats why 'hell' is taken out 40 of the 53 times in the NIV.
Wescott:

1. Did not believe in a literal heaven...much like the pope today.
2. Said there is no second coming of Christ. My friends, Titus 2:13 says, 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'.
3. He believed the writings of mystics was profitable to read.
4. Thought the first three chapters of Genesis could not possibly have given a literal history.
5. Rejected the infallibility of scriptures.
6. Claimed it was improbable that the miracles of the Bible really occurred.


Westcott & Hort


Here is comment from Wescott, quote: 'As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but many'.
Catholics hold La Salette as special as the place in France where two young children said they saw and talked with an apparition of the Weeping Virgin.

From their letters:

Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."

And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."

Regarding Hort's fascination with Darwin, the following quote sheds some light.

Hort:

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."

These are not words from true Christian scholars, but more of one who has turned to fables.

 

[Gary K]

Reddogs,

Thanks for the posts. The list of Bible versions and what they are based upon was really good. The only version I didn't see listed, and I may have missed it just scanning the list, was Green's LITV.

Based on your last post it appears Westcott and Hort were spiritual descendants of the rationalists that arose during the French Revolution. N.N. Whiting's little book Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology shows what the rationalists thought and how they viewed scripture and inspiration.

Good posts.

 

[reddogs]

Reddogs,

Thanks for the posts. The list of Bible versions and what they are based upon was really good. The only version I didn't see listed, and I may have missed it just scanning the list, was Green's LITV.

Based on your last post it appears Westcott and Hort were spiritual descendants of the rationalists that arose during the French Revolution. N.N. Whiting's little book Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology shows what the rationalists thought and how they viewed scripture and inspiration.

Good posts.

That makes sense as they seemed to have that frame of mind, I will see what I find.

 

[tampasteve]

The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards)

Would you mind referencing where the Waldensians got their manuscripts or that they used such manuscripts? Since they did not show up on the scene until the late 1100s I would be interested to see how they managed to have copies of manuscripts so old.

 

[now faith]

Well....
I stopped by because I was told Adventist were teaching from modern Bible versions.
I have listened to Adventist sermons ,as well Lecturers on the King '
James.
It is the only Bible I use , and it's nice to see great teaching on the history of The Bible..

God bless.

 

[reddogs]

Would you mind referencing where the Waldensians got their manuscripts or that they used such manuscripts? Since they did not show up on the scene until the late 1100s I would be interested to see how they managed to have copies of manuscripts so old.

Need to read your history, they were a people from way before that called the Vaudois and they were located in northern Italy and France who got the scriptures that came from Antioch. I have found it in many books and historical references all the way to the Reformers. Here is one descriptions.."There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that taught the literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.

This Received Text was soon translated into old Latin in about 150 A.D. (long before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

These men of God preached salvation by grace through faith in the redeeming blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, predestination, the priesthood of the believer, believer’s baptism by immersion—centuries before the Protestant Reformation.

They condemned the Roman Catholic doctrines of idolatry, transubstantiation and the forbidding of the Bible to the common people. Many sealed their testimony with their own blood. Their Italic Bible agrees with the KJV.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text that later was translated into our KJV Bible."The Preserved Word of God in English, Part 2

"God preserved the words of the New Testament by His faithful Christian disciples, from Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to the Vaudois people of the French Alps about AD 120. From the 150s on they passed this Old Latin Bible (called "Common Bible" or "Vulgate") throughout Europe and the British Isles. The Vaudois people were regarded by the Protestants and Baptists as "pre-Reformers," passing down the gospel message till the Reformation of the 1500s. Their Bibles, as well as others translated from them, were so accurate they were included in translating the King James Bible. The NKJV committee unwisely used none of these Bibles."NKJV not the KKV

There are books on this..A History of the Vaudois Church from Its Origin, and of the Vaudois of Piedmont to the Present Day

“It is the branch of the Old Latin used in northern Italy that attracts our interest most, and
establishes one of the crucial chapters in Bible transmissional history. This version, known as the
Itala, is associated with the Christians of the Vaudois – the valleys of northern Italy and southern
France. These noble believers withstood every attempt of Rome to “bring them into the fold.” From
the days of Pope Sylvester (early 300’s) unto the massacres of 1655, they were slaughtered, their
names blackened and their records destroyed; yet they remained true to the Scriptures. They are
known by a number of names,
Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a lineal descendent of the Old Latin Itala. In other words, the
Itala has come down to us in the Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text.”
See also remarks by Dr Ruckman and Dr Mrs Riplinger on Matthew 20:22 and the corrupting
influence of Origen and Jerome on the Old Latin. See The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical
Scholarship by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, pp 98-99 and In Awe of Thy
Word by G.A. Riplinger, A.V. Publications Corp., 2003, p 963.
Of the Waldensian overtures to Pope Alexander III, Dr Ruckman [The History of the New Testament
Church, Volume 1 by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1982, p 293] notes with
reference to the exhaustive church history by Philip Schaff, “In 1179 they asked Alexander III to let
them preach on the streets and even gave him a copy of their Bible which they had translated from
the Old Latin of the King James Bible. They were forbidden to preach and were laughed out of the
council. Later their Bibles were committed to the flames and eighty of their preachers were burned
at the stake in [Strasburg] in 1212.”
Wilkinson gives a credible explanation12 pp 201, 205-206, 209 for the intensity of the papal reaction, with
numerous references. See also remarks from the KJO James White Review Full Text under Early
Conspirators and Corrupters. (J .J. Ray is citing Wilkinson.)
This extract includes what Kutilek cited plus some crucial statements that he omitted.
“Some authorities speak of the Waldenses as having as their Bible, the Vulgate. We regret to dispute
these claims. But when we consider that the Waldenses were, so to speak, in their mountain
fastnesses, on an island in the midst of a sea of nations using the Vulgate, without doubt they knew
and possessed the Vulgate; but the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which
they lived and suffered and died. Moreover, to the east was Constantinople, the center of Greek
Catholicism, whose Bible was the Received Text; while a little farther east, was the noble Syrian
Church which also had the Received Text. In touch with these, northern Italy could easily verify her
text. It is very evident that the Latin Bible of early British Christianity [i.e. of the same lineage as the
Waldensian Bibles] not only was not the Latin Bible of the Papacy, that is, the Vulgate, but it was at
such variance with the Vulgate as to engender strife.
“The following quotation from Dr. Von Dobschutz will verify these two facts:
““When Pope Gregory found some Anglo-Saxon youths at the slave market of Rome and perceived
that in the North there was still a pagan nation to be baptized, he sent one of his monks to England,
and this monk, who was Saint Augustine, took with him the Bible and introduced it to the AngloSaxons,
and one of his followers brought with him from Rome pictures showing the Biblical history,
and decorated the walls of the church in the monastery of Wearmouth. We do not enter here into the
difficult question of the relations between this newly founded Anglo-Saxon church and the old IroScottish
church. Differences of Bible text had something to do with the pitiful struggles which arose
between the churches and ended in the devastation of the older one.””
The savagery of the papal reaction to the Waldensian approach to Alexander III, which Wilkinson
also documents and which documentation on Wilkinson’s part Kutilek also neglects to mention,
stems not simply from the Waldensian efforts to translate the scriptures into the vernacular but
because their translation came from a different Latin text compared to that of Jerome’s Vulgate.
Wilkinson provides further evidence to this effect.
“In the fourth century, Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy, accused Jerome, whom the Pope
had empowered to form a Bible in Latin for Catholicism, with using corrupt Greek manuscripts.
How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing corrupt Greek MSS. if Helvidius had not
had the pure Greek manuscripts? And so learned and so powerful in writing and teaching was
Jovinian, the pupil of Helvidius, that it demanded three of Rome’s most famous fathers — Augustine,
Jerome, and Ambrose — to unite in opposing Jovinian’s influence. Even then, it needed the
condemnation of the Pope and the banishment of the Emperor to prevail. But Jovinian’s followers
lived on and made the way easier for Luther…


“The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on,
they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible,
the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D. We are indebted to Beza, the
renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. From the
illustrious group of scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 A.D., we may understand how the
Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches. As the sixteenth century is
closing, we see in the beautiful Swiss city of Geneva, Beza, an outstanding champion of
Protestantism, the scholar Cyril Lucar, later to become the head of the Greek Catholic Church, and
Diodati, also a foremost scholar. As Beza astonishes and confounds the world by restoring
manuscripts of that Greek New Testament from which the King James is translated, Diodati takes the
same and translates into Italian a new and famous edition, adopted and circulated by the
Waldenses.”

Check out this SDA site www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/Answers2-3.htm
Here is part of it as it relates to the text from Antioch, "At this point let me quote from Burgon and Miller, p. 145:

"How could he (Paul) have known intimately so many of the leading Roman Christians, unless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from Antioch to Rome? Such travellers, and they would by no means be confined to the days of St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The stories and books, told or written in Aramaic must have gone through all Syria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the authorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest times translations must have been made from Aramic or Syriac into Latin, as afterwards from Greek. Then a connection between the Italian and Syrian Churches, and also between the teaching given in the two countries, must have lain embedded in the foundations of their common Christianity, and must have exercised an influence during very many years after." Burgon and Miller, "The traditional Text.", page 145. (Emphasis mine)

All the forgoing argument may be found in my book summed up in one paragraph which my Reviewers did not notice, much less attempt to answer. This paragraph reads, (O. A. B.V. p. 37)

"It is recognized that the Itala was translated from the Received Text (Syrian Hort calls it); that the Vulgate is the Itala with the readings of the Received Text removed."

Of course this means the variant readings removed. Why did Jerome remove the Textus Receptus variant readings from the Itala, if the Itala and the Vulgate were the same? See also article on Jerome in McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia which shows that Jerome in getting out the Vulgate, departed widely from the "traditional text" (i.e. Textus Receptus), "the only text which was known" to those who resisted Jerome's innovations. If Holvidius, Jovinian and Vigilantus (reputed founder of the Waldenses) were fighting Jerome, it was not likely they would accept his Bible, edited under the flatteries of the Pope.

But we have some more splendid testimony concerning the Waldensians and their Bible. other than is left entirely to the speculation of higher critics. I read from the earlier edition of "Great Controversy:"

"The Waldenses were the first of all the people of Europe to obtain a translation of the Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed the entire Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution.... Here the lamp of truth was kept burning during the long night that descended upon Christendom. Here for a thousand years they maintained their ancient faith." "Great Controversy," pp. 70,71,(1884 edition)

The Spirit of Prophecy emphasis the fact that the Waldenses were the first people to have the Scriptures translated from the original into their native tongue. She said they had the entire Bible, and whatever Bible they had, it was pure and unadulterated. I wish to make note that this evangelical Bible stretched back to Apostolic days. I quote from Dr. Alexis Muston:

"Thus was the primitive church preserved in the Alps at the very period of the Reformation. The Vaudois are the chain which united the Reformed church with the first disciples of our Saviour. It is in vain that Popery, renegade from evangelical verities, has a thousand times sought to break this chain it resists all her efforts. Empires have crumbled, dynasties have fallen, but this chain of scriptural testimony has not been broken, because its strength is not from men, but from God." Muston, "The Israel of the Alps", Vol I, p. 29.

Let us recognize that Jerome brought the Vulgate into existence 390 A.D. By the influence of the--Pope the Apocryphal books were inserted. The Waldenses on the other hand, made a distinction between the Canonical and the Apocryphal books, My Reviewers intimate that they did not by the quotation (Section I, p. 16) and further that they did not have the whole Bible. But I read from Allix:

"The Church of Italy made a more accurate distinction of the Canonical Books form the Apochryphal, than the Church of Rome at that time did." Allix, "Ancient Churches of Poedmont", p. 23

He is speaking of the ancestors of Waldenses in the 5th century,- It is true that some later MSS of the Waldenses had certain of the Apocryphal books, but they did not look upon them as authoritive for doctrine, any more than certain English Bibles having hymns printed in them. Their confession of faith 1120 says so about Apocryphal books. (See Perrie, "History of Ancient Christians', p. 212

Furthermore, the Spirit of Prophecy says that the Scriptures of the Waldenses were pure and unadulterated. To us speaks again "Great Controversy";

"Some manuscripts contained the whole Bible..."

"By patient, untiring labor, sometimes in the deep, dark caverns of the earth, by the light of torches, the Sacred Scriptures were written out, verse by verse, chapter by chapter ... Angels of Heaven surrounded these faithful workers.

"Satan had urged on the papal priests and prelates to bury the word of truth beneath the rubbish of error, heresy, and superstition; but in a most wonderful manner it was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness. "Great Controversy", pp. 68,69.

 

[tampasteve]

Thank you for the informative reply.

 

[now faith]