Conspiracy crazy, credibility wanting

J316

New Member
Nonsense. You should drop this Catholic conspiracy crazy talk. The KJV reeks of Catholic influence that you cannot deny. It's a huge double standard and leaves your credibility wanting.

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for the new translation and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships." - Excerpt from p. 45 of the Introduction to the NU/UBS Text, 27th Ed.

Some people are here to make sure that others never come to the knowledge of the truth. Conspiracy crazy, they will accuse you of the very thing they themselves are doing. See the conspirators and the crazies defending them. Credibility? If any, don't leave it wanting here!

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. - Psa 2:2-3
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for the new translation and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships." - Excerpt from p. 45 of the Introduction to the NU/UBS Text, 27th Ed.

Some people are here to make sure that others never come to the knowledge of the truth. Conspiracy crazy, they will accuse you of the very thing they themselves are doing. Now you see the conspirators and the crazies defending them. Credibility, don't leave it wanting here!

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. - Psa 2:2-3

Do you have a point? I don't see anything other than an appeal to authority. Face the facts. Fr. Desiderious Erasmus was a Catholic Priest who dedicated his TR to Pope Leo X, the indulgence Pope.

That sums it up quite nicely.

The rest of your post is a personal attack without naming the person you are accusing.

Here are the New CARM rules:

https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/

You should read them.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Nonsense. Your above post here is what you said to another without naming them and you feel is not a personal attack. Talking about double standard.
No, it's not the same. I quoted the poster's actual words and replied to him by using the pronoun 'you', See you aren't following the KJVO mantra of "things that are different are not the same.

These are not the same.

This explains why KJVO's can't support their own words. It happens because you can't give up your script.

You didn't even attempt to deal with the facts regarding Father Desiderious Erasmus. I am not surprised.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Some people are here to make sure that others never come to the knowledge of the truth.

Do your posts suggest that you may be one of those who refuses to come to the knowledge of the truth?

KJV-only posters refuse to come to the knowledge of the truth that they believe assertions concerning the KJV that are not true.

The truth remains that the KJV has many ties to the Roman Catholic Church and its Latin Vulgate translation.

The Church of England has the Roman Catholic Church as its mother church according to King James I.
Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, did add readings from an edition of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate by Jerome to his edited Greek text.
The Church of England makers of the KJV were sometimes influenced by the Latin Vulgate in their textual and translation decisions.
The KJV translators made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had the renderings of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome as the definitions of original-language words of Scripture.
The KJV translators borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed several or even many renderings from the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view’s corrupt tree of Bibles. First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would acknowledge or affirm the use of the 1582 Rheims NT in the making of the KJV.

Ward Allen observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying up on the example of the Rheims Bible" (Translating for King James, pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] ( p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263). J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). Glenn Conjurske wrote: “At the end of Revelation 18:13, the King James Version follows the Rheims New Testament in saying ‘slaves’ instead of the correct translation ‘bodies’ (relegating ‘bodies’ to the margin). The Rheims version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and the reading ‘slaves’ comes from mancipiorum of the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 87). Do many KJV-only authors avoid discussing the role of the 1582 Rheims in the “unmatched” heritage of the KJV?

The sound, compelling evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV could be soundly considered a serious or even a devastating problem for a KJV-only view and its claims and arguments.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Along with the direct use of the 1582 Rheims, another way that the Latin Vulgate of Jerome could be the indirect source of renderings in the KJV was through the Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons of that day, which were said often to use the words of the Latin Vulgate as their definitions. That was likely true of the Greek-Latin lexicon and Hebrew-Latin dictionary printed with the Roman Catholic Complutensian Polyglot. In 1847, The Churchman’s Monthly Review maintained that “the Thesauraus of Santes Pagninus [1470-1541] was one of the earliest Hebrew Latin lexicons” (p. 129). This source noted that Pagninus was “a Jesuit” and that his lexicon “contains the Latin Vulgate translation of every word in the Hebrew Bible” (Ibid.). It also indicated that this lexicon by Pagninus was used by Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics. Bishop Grindal is said to have had a copy of an edition of the Lexicon of Pagninus printed in 1577 that he left to the library at Queen’s College at Oxford. David Norton observed that KJV translator Edward Lively had a copy of “Pagninus’s Thesaurus Lingue Sanctae” (KJB: Short History, p. 69). Jones, Moore, and Reid noted that KJV translator “Henry Savile himself gave to the library a copy of Pagninus’s Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 96). Joanna Weinberg maintained that KJV translator Richard Kilby was “dubbed ‘a walking Pagnini,’ a reference to the Dominican Santas Pagnini, author of the most authoritative, and frequently consulted, Hebrew-Latin dictionary” (Feingold, Labourers, p. 163). The author of Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation asserted that Reuchlin in his Hebrew-Latin dictionary or lexicon “gives the equivalent Latin expression, generally more than one, for every Hebrew word and then adduces examples for each meaning. These examples are naturally taken from the Old Testament; they are not quoted in Hebrew but in the Latin of the Vulgate” (pp. 76-77). David H. Price maintained that Johannes Reuchlin’s Hebrew-Latin lexicon in his Rudiments of Hebrew “rejected Jerome’s text in several hundred places” (Johannes Reuchlin, p. 61), which would suggest that it gave Jerome’s Latin renderings as definitions of Hebrew words in the many other cases. R. Cunningham Didham contended that the “Hebrew lexicons of those days rather perpetuated the errors of the Vulgate than the sense of the Hebrew” (New Translation of the Psalms, p. 7). Didham added: “Even the Lexicon of the celebrated Sebastian Munster was no more than that, as Wolf assures us, the Latin words of the Vulgate” (Ibid.). Herbert Marsh noted: “When Sebastian Munster composed his Dictionarium Hebraicum, he added to each Hebrew word the sense in Latin. And whence did he derive those Latin senses? From the Vulgate” (Lectures, p. 521). Sebastian Munster also compiled a Latin-Greek-Hebrew dictionary. Henry Kiddle and Alexander Schem maintained that until the 1800’s “the Greek language was studied through the medium of the Latin, and there were no Greek-English, but only Greek-Latin lexicons” (Cyclopaedia, p. 224). Paul Botley wrote: “Many scholars learnt Greek through the Vulgate, and compiled their elementary Greek-Latin lexica from a collation of the Vulgate Bible with its Greek equivalents. Consequently, the equations of the Vulgate often formed the basis of the lexica” (Latin Translation in the Renaissance, p. 96). The KJV translators may have had the Greek Lexicon or Thesaurus of Henry Stephens and the Greek Lexicon of Robert Constantine (1502-1605). Ward Allen pointed out how John Bois cited the lexicons of Hesychius and of Henry Stephens (Translating, p. 33). Gail Riplinger admitted: “The few lexicons the KJB translators did use were generally in Latin, not English” (Hazardous, p. 1187).

Would a consistent application of the reasoning in Riplinger's book suggest that the KJV translators were wrong to use any lexicons that borrowed any definitions from a corrupt Bible translation--the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and any from secular pagan authors, unbelieving Jews, or Roman Catholic Church fathers? Is Gail Riplinger in effect implying that use of any lexicon with definitions from a corrupt translation such as the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate of Jerome would have contaminated the KJV?

Did the KJV’s rendering “pygarg” (Deut. 14:5) come from a Hebrew-Latin lexicon which had the rendering of the Latin Vulgate “pygargus” as its Latin definition of a Hebrew noun or did it come directly from the Latin Vulgate or from the Greek LXX?
Did the KJV’s rendering “unicorn” come directly from the Latin Vulgate or indirectly from the Latin Vulgate by means of a Hebrew-Latin lexicon or by means of a pre-1611 English Bible which took it from the Latin Vulgate or a Hebrew-Latin lexicon?

Would a consistent, just application of stated KJV-only reasoning suggest that any rendering in the KJV whether indirectly from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome through means of a Hebrew-Latin lexicon or directly from the Latin Vulgate would contaminate the KJV?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
According to a consistent, just application of KJV-only assertions, were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, any Greek-Latin lexicon with any definitions from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or even as a source for some or many renderings?

According to a consistent, just application of stated KJV-only reasoning, should the KJV translators have changed and revised the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims?

Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed some renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s impure, corrupt tree/stream of Bibles be a major or devastating problem for inconsistent, human KJV-only reasoning?

Does a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from an impure, corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims?

Did the KJV translators in effect indicate some approval of a translation that was corrupt when they borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Rheims?

Does this use of the 1582 Rheims demonstrate that the 1611 KJV was free of contamination?

Would the process for the making of the KJV be “invalidated by a single verse of Scripture: ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.’ (Job 14:4)”? (Grady, Given by Inspiration, p. 176). Did the KJV translators’ borrowing from the unclean, corrupt 1582 Rheims violate Job 14:4?

Do KJV-only advocates actually follow all the readings and renderings of the KJV back to their sources?

According to a consistent application of Ruckman’s own assertion, would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan’s interest was involved in the KJV’s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims?

Is a Pandora’s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed good tree or pure stream of Bibles?

Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven or contaminate the whole KJV?

Would Ruckman and other KJV-only advocates condemn the KJV translators for their use of the 1582 Rheims as a model or source for some renderings introduced into the 1611 KJV?

How do KJV-only advocates explain any changes or alterations made in the KJV to the good pre-1611 English Bibles that would have pleased Roman Catholics and were in agreement with the 1582 Rheims, which they have placed on their tree of corrupt Bibles?

Would KJV-only advocates suggest that revising the pre-1611 English Bibles with replacement renderings from the 1582 Rheims was partially reinstating the Roman Catholic Bible?

Do KJV-only advocates find where the KJV translators changed the pre-1611 English Bible and go back and see from where the changes came?

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV jump over to the “polluted” or “corrupt” stream of Bibles in obtaining some renderings from the 1582 Rheims?

Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the replacement renderings taken from the 1582 Rheims, would it be 100% accurate to assert that the KJV emerges solely or completely from the Received Text?

Do the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims in effect make the KJV partially a hybrid Bible?

Could the KJV’s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions?

Is the fact that the KJV can be associated with the 1582 Rheims as one of its sources a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning?

Is the 1582 Rheims an intermediate link between the Latin Vulgate and the 1611 KJV? Does the KJV also have links to the Latin Vulgate through the KJV translators’ use of Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons that had renderings from the Latin Vulgate as some or many of their definitions of original-language words? If KJV-only advocates in effect permit the KJV translators the latitude or leeway to adopt a reading or a rendering from non-received text sources, on what consistent, just basis can they condemn another translation for supposedly doing the same thing? Is it now very clear that KJV-only advocates do not apply consistently and justly their own stated measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently and thus unjustly use them to criticize later English Bibles?

These thought-provoking questions are based on a consistent, just application of assertions or claims in KJV-only writings. Are KJV-only advocates masters of avoiding questions that would be problems for their inconsistent, human KJV-only reasoning?
 

Shoonra

Member
In their introduction in the 1611 edition, the KJV translators themselves wrote:

Neither did we think much [=hesitate] to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French [=Calvanist?], Italian, or Dutch [=German?]; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered. .... Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures....

So I would suppose the KJV translators at least glanced at Jerome's Vulgate and the Rheims translation; they may not have valued them very highly but they undoubtedly were aware of them ... and they had to use the Vulgate to provide bits of the KJV Apocrypha and to provide some Latinized names (such as Diana instead of Artemis, in Acts).
 
Top