KJVO?

[sojourner4Christ]

In fact, Christians have stopped buying the NIV because of inclusive language and I don't really depend on the NASB because Westcott and Hort were Posttribulationists.

The situation is far worse.

Westcott and Hort were mystics, spiritualists, and necromancers. They admitted they were heretics.

All new versions (and the ‘new’ church they are producing) owe their occult bend to their underlying Greek text, a novelty produced in the 1880’s by Brooke Foss Westcott, a London Spiritualist, and his cohort, Fenton John Anthony Hort. Secular historians and numerous occult books see Westcott as ‘the Father’ of the current channeling phenomenon, a major source of the ‘doctrines of devils’ driving the New Age movement.

Westcott and Hort wrote the Greek text underlying the new versions. A look into their private thoughts, via their personal correspondence preserved in their biographies, reveals the thoughts and activities of these men. Check the documentation for yourself here.

Buyer beware.
.
.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I'm sorry that small minded people did that to her.

It is important to know that the good outweighs the bad. The King James represents the Bible being made available to people who might not have had it before. There were other Bibles but it was used in the time of the Reformation and almost all of the creeds we have today came out of the Westminster Confession of Faith. So I see this Bible as partly responsible for the Reformation and I am still waiting the modern reformation from modern Bibles which we don't have. In fact, Christians have stopped buying the NIV because of inclusive language and I don't really depend on the NASB because Westcott and Hort were Posttribulationists. So what do you really have today that people are using? They are divided. Churches have the King James. Some still have the NIV. Others are using the ESV. Some colleges are using the NASB.

As far as the manuscript evidence goes, when someone made a mistake, they put the manuscript on the shelf and didn't use it. What we have people doing today is picking up the manuscript that wasn't used and they are saying it is in better condition so lets trust it. The reason that some manuscripts are in better condition is because no one read them for 1,000 years.

The invention of the printing press made it possible for common man to own their own copy of the Bible. It was never denied to people before, regardless of what you hear about the "evil Catholics" who conspired to deprive the vernacular of the holy Scriptures. Before the printing press, people owned pages of Scripture and traded them amongst each other. One whole Bible took a large herd of sheep for skins and the cost was more than a man made in a lifetime. It would take decades to complete, and to make sure that there were no errors, an imprimatur from the Bishop was required for such a project. Martin Luther was a contemporary of the printing press which allowed the Bible to be mass produced, but it was that invention, more than Luther, that finally put Bibles into the hands of people.

 

[StanJ]

The invention of the printing press made it possible for common man to own their own copy of the Bible. It was never denied to people before, regardless of what you hear about the "evil Catholics" who conspired to deprive the vernacular of the holy Scriptures. Before the printing press, people owned pages of Scripture and traded them amongst each other. One whole Bible took a large herd of sheep for skins and the cost was more than a man made in a lifetime. It would take decades to complete, and to make sure that there were no errors, an imprimatur from the Bishop was required for such a project. Martin Luther was a contemporary of the printing press which allowed the Bible to be mass produced, but it was that invention, more than Luther, that finally put Bibles into the hands of people.

Yes that is true...the Gutenberg and Bamberg Bibles were the first printed Bibles and after that we had the following English versions;

• Tyndale
• Coverdale
• Matthew
• Great Bible
• Taverner
• Geneva
• Bishops'
• Douay–Rheims

The KJV was just another attempt at the English monarchy to distance themselves from the RCC and it's domination of Christianity at the time.

 

[Chuckt]

The invention of the printing press made it possible for common man to own their own copy of the Bible. It was never denied to people before, regardless of what you hear about the "evil Catholics" who conspired to deprive the vernacular of the holy Scriptures. Before the printing press, people owned pages of Scripture and traded them amongst each other. One whole Bible took a large herd of sheep for skins and the cost was more than a man made in a lifetime. It would take decades to complete, and to make sure that there were no errors, an imprimatur from the Bishop was required for such a project. Martin Luther was a contemporary of the printing press which allowed the Bible to be mass produced, but it was that invention, more than Luther, that finally put Bibles into the hands of people.

What Bible did they give the people? The only proof I have heard were reformers in the Catholic church used as an examples for the Catholic church or they were to help priests understand the original language. The only Bible I know that the Catholic church came out with was 200 years after Protestants published their Bible. And I think that there is evidence that a couple of Popes either banned it or made it a criminal offense. What good was the Bible in Latin and services in Latin if the common person couldn't understand it?

 

[StanJ]

What Bible did they give the people? The only proof I have heard were reformers in the Catholic church used as an examples for the Catholic church or they were to help priests understand the original language. The only Bible I know that the Catholic church came out with was 200 years after Protestants published their Bible. And I think that there is evidence that a couple of Popes either banned it or made it a criminal offense. What good was the Bible in Latin and services in Latin if the common person couldn't understand it?

Actually the Gutenberg and Bamberg Bibles were from the Latin Vulgate, which of course is from the RCC.

 

[Chuckt]

Actually the Gutenberg and Bamberg Bibles were from the Latin Vulgate, which of course is from the RCC.

There are only 14 surviving copies of the Bamberg Bible and 8 of them are in Germany.

There are only 21 complete Gutenberg Bibles in the world and they are in Latin.

The number is too few to suggest that the Bible was available to the masses.

 

[StanJ]

There are only 14 surviving copies of the Bamberg Bible and 8 of them are in Germany.

There are only 21 complete Gutenberg Bibles in the world and they are in Latin.

The number is too few to suggest that the Bible was available to the masses.

One has nothing to do with the other nor with your responses. Rarity is just that, rarity. It has nothing to do with availability back then. The point is the RCC was NOT trying to hide it.

 

[Chuckt]

One has nothing to do with the other nor with your responses. Rarity is just that, rarity. It has nothing to do with availability back then. The point is the RCC was NOT trying to hide it.

It isn't proof that they were available to the masses and I think only the rich knew Latin.

Late Latin is the administrative and literary language of Late Antiquity in the late Roman empire and states that succeeded the Western Roman Empire over the same range. By its broadest definition it is dated from about 200 AD to about 900 AD when it was replaced by written Romance languages. Opinion concerning whether it should be considered classical is divided. The authors of the period looked back to a classical period they believed should be imitated and yet their styles were often classical. According to the narrowest definitions, Late Latin did not exist and the authors of the times are to be considered medieval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin

In other words, it wasn't the common language of the day and Latin was replaced by Romance languages. So if you were a common person, you couldn't understand it because you were uneducated in Latin.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

What Bible did they give the people? The only proof I have heard were reformers in the Catholic church used as an examples for the Catholic church or they were to help priests understand the original language. The only Bible I know that the Catholic church came out with was 200 years after Protestants published their Bible. And I think that there is evidence that a couple of Popes either banned it or made it a criminal offense. What good was the Bible in Latin and services in Latin if the common person couldn't understand it?

I can't believe you managed to pack so much ignorance into a single post. "The only proof I have heard were reformers in the Catholic church used as an examples for the Catholic church or they were to help priests understand the original language"....what does that even mean? And the Catholic Church was the originator of the Bible, having made it official in the counsels of Rome and Hippo at the end of the 4th century. It's clear you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the history of the Bible and that's disturbing indeed. And "I think that there is evidence that a couple of Popes either banned it or made it a criminal offense" is just a brain fart of epic proportions and I can't intelligently respond to somebody shooting from the hip and motivated by nothing more than an irrational hatred of the Catholic Church. By the way, people spoke and understood Latin, the liturgical language of the Church and Masses were said in the vernacular but recorded in Latin. And although for a couple of centuries there was a ban on producing vernacular Bibles, versions in the vernacular have been available to people for the entire history of the church. Why don't you try to educate yourself starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.
A pope put the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional Greek New Testament text, on the Index of Forbidden Books , because it was so different from the Catholic church's Vulgate bible, which is based on the Vaticanus manuscript. Today unwary Protestants have reworked their Greek New Testament text to match Rome's Vaticanus manuscript. Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini is even on the Protestant Greek New Testament committee. The prefaces to the Roman Catholic New American Bible , the NASB, and most other new versions tell the reader that they are based on the same Nestle/Aland/UBS Greek text. It is no wonder, after many years of reading Roman Catholic bibles hidden under NIV, NASB, or NKJV covers, that evangelical leaders began signing pacts with Rome in March 1994.
.
.

 

[Chuckt]

.
A pope put the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional Greek New Testament text, on the Index of Forbidden Books , because it was so different from the Catholic church's Vulgate bible, which is based on the Vaticanus manuscript. Today unwary Protestants have reworked their Greek New Testament text to match Rome's Vaticanus manuscript. Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini is even on the Protestant Greek New Testament committee. The prefaces to the Roman Catholic New American Bible , the NASB, and most other new versions tell the reader that they are based on the same Nestle/Aland/UBS Greek text. It is no wonder, after many years of reading Roman Catholic bibles hidden under NIV, NASB, or NKJV covers, that evangelical leaders began signing pacts with Rome in March 1994.
.
.

It is about the money when it comes down to having radio listeners and people who buy Christian books. The bigger audience the better profits. The bigger audience, the bigger voting block.

I think that is why I got kicked off of a big time radio's forum ; I spoke against harmonizing Protestants and Catholics.

 

[StanJ]

It isn't proof that they were available to the masses and I think only the rich knew Latin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Latin

In other words, it wasn't the common language of the day and Latin was replaced by Romance languages. So if you were a common person, you couldn't understand it because you were uneducated in Latin.

The POINT is they were available to the masses, to whoever could afford them, NOT just to the RCC. As far as Latin was concerned back then in the 1400 - 1600s, it was one of the two dominant literary languages. So basically most people who could read, were able to read Latin and French.
Renaissance Latin was the language of the schools then, which you should have seen, had you actually read the link you provided, instead of quoting an irrelevant part of that link, having to do with the Latin of 200 to 900 AD. Please try and stay ON topic and stop with all the irrelevant data.

 

[Chuckt]

The POINT is they were available to the masses, to whoever could afford them, NOT just to the RCC. As far as Latin was concerned back then in the 1400 - 1600s, it was one of the two dominant literary languages. So basically most people who could read, were able to read Latin and French.
Renaissance Latin was the language of the schools then, which you should have seen, had you actually read the link you provided, instead of quoting an irrelevant part of that link, having to do with the Latin of 200 to 900 AD. Please try and stay ON topic and stop with all the irrelevant data.

Available to the masses who couldn't afford them or learn the language.

Medieval Education in England was the preserve of the rich. Education in Medieval England had to be paid for and medieval peasants could not have hoped to have afforded the fees. When William I conquered England in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings, he took over a country where very few were educated – including the wealthy. The most educated people were those who worked in the church but many who worked in the monasteries had taken a vow of isolation and their work remained isolated with them.

The sons of the peasants could only be educated if the lord of the manor had given his permission. Any family caught having a son educated without permission was heavily fined. Historians today feel that this policy was simply an extension of those in authority trying to keep peasants in their place, as an educated peasant/villein might prove to be a threat to his master as he might start to question the way things were done.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_education.htm

 

[StanJ]

Available to the masses who couldn't afford them or learn the language.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_education.htm

Irrelevant and we are speaking about the middle 15 century, not the early part of the 10 century. We are also NOT talking about England solely, NOR medieval times. You seem to have a fondness for focusing on obscure and irrelevant issues, and not staying on topic?

 

[Chuckt]

Irrelevant and we are speaking about the middle 15 century, not the early part of the 10 century. We are also NOT talking about England solely, NOR medieval times. You seem to have a fondness for focusing on obscure and irrelevant issues, and not staying on topic?

Stan,

The burden of proof is on you.

Chuck

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

The burden of proof is on you.

Chuck

Chuck,
As all you've done is assert your POV as fact and it has been refuted, the BOP is on you my friend.
Stan

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.

Chuck, I'll clue you in so you won't be further tempted to fall for the tactic, which works like this:

First, use a straw man. That is, find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad (e.g. an inciteful OP, e.g. "KJVO?", that fits the agenda). Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Then amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Second, practice avoidance, never actually discussing issues head-on or providing constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about your presentation implies your authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Then ignore proof presented, and demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal). In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

I hope this helps you with your responses in this thread.
.
.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

.
A pope put the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional Greek New Testament text, on the Index of Forbidden Books , because it was so different from the Catholic church's Vulgate bible, which is based on the Vaticanus manuscript. Today unwary Protestants have reworked their Greek New Testament text to match Rome's Vaticanus manuscript. Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini is even on the Protestant Greek New Testament committee. The prefaces to the Roman Catholic New American Bible , the NASB, and most other new versions tell the reader that they are based on the same Nestle/Aland/UBS Greek text. It is no wonder, after many years of reading Roman Catholic bibles hidden under NIV, NASB, or NKJV covers, that evangelical leaders began signing pacts with Rome in March 1994.
.
.

There's two sides to this issue, one of which is the Catholic Church's control over what Bibles are authorized for reproduction and the second being the charge that the Catholic Church conspired to keep the Bible out of the hands of people. The second notion is easily disproved because, truth be told, before the invention of the printing press, Bibles were hard to come by because they required years of manual labor and cost more than a man's lifetime salary. Even so, people possessed and traded pages of Scripture, they were never without it.

The imprimatur for a copy project was required by the Bishop to ensure that the Bible could not be corrupted. Martin Luther only proved the need for such control when he, in his German translation, began to insert his own doctrine into the text and remove books he disagreed with. The problem is that when we second guess history, we show contempt for the very process by which we can know for certain today that the Bible contains no errors, having been carefully and assiduously copied throughout the centuries under the watchful eye of God's holy Church. Satan has attacked the integrity of this process throughout history and has always been stayed by Christians who loved the Holy Scriptures enough to preserve it from corruption at any cost. Do you really want to go back and change history...to make the Catholic Church a little less controlling? Do you really want to take the chance that the Bible would still be an impeccable verbatim of the ancient manuscripts? I don't think we dare to take that chance.

 

[StanJ]

The issue about which translation is best, is based on a canard about Greek texts and how some are more reliable than others. All English translations have their errors and shorts comings, but among the almost 5700 Greek manuscripts we have today, 99.5% of them agree. If we want to understand what these Greek texts are actually saying in today's English, we have to use today's Bible translations. Most of the major ones are reliable and accurate, including the New American Bible.
I tend to trust fully qualified and credentialed Greek scholars when it comes to translations, and NOT arm chair critics, who usually know absolutely nothing about the Greek/Hebrew languages.

 

[Chuckt]

.

Chuck, I'll clue you in so you won't be further tempted to fall for the tactic, which works like this:

First, use a straw man. That is, find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad (e.g. an inciteful OP, e.g. "KJVO?", that fits the agenda). Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Then amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Second, practice avoidance, never actually discussing issues head-on or providing constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about your presentation implies your authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Then ignore proof presented, and demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal). In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

I hope this helps you with your responses in this thread.
.
.

I went to college and graduated. I haven't spent as much time I have wanted to on this subject as I have wanted to but this is what I have written before and the only thing one Catholic could bring up was one Bible translated by a reformer and not much is known about him:

What Bible did the Catholics read? There wasn't one because it wasn't translated.

We have Wycliffe's Bible in 1382 and we have the Catholic DOUAY-Rheims Bible in 1582. That is a difference of 200 years and I think the Catholics were forced to print it to compete. If you know your history and if it isn't a lie then show me a Catholic Bible translated for the masses before that because there wasn't one.

The Bible was one of the first textbooks in American schools so that people could read the Bible.
Quote:
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494–1536) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his translation of the Bible into English. He was influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus, who made the Greek New Testament available in Europe, and by Martin Luther.[1] While a number of partial and incomplete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the grass-roots spread of
Quote:
Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English
—even though translations in all other major European languages had been accomplished and made available.[2][3]
William Tyndale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the quote : "Wycliffe's Bible resulted in a death sentence for any unlicensed possession of Scripture in English."
The only people who learned Latin or Greek were connected to the monestaries because they were the center of learning and they wouldn't permit outsiders knowing the truth and that is why they were burning the Bible.

If the Bible was read then why wasn't it translated?

A war was fought between Protestants and Catholics over control. That is why the Catholics didn't want people to read the Bible. The Bible says that believers are a kingdom of priests and the Catholics would have no control over Papal States if we decided our own salvation. The Pope has no more papal states under his control so that is why he had to form the Vatican because he needed control over something.
Quote:
William Tyndale's Bible was the very first English language Bible to appear in print. It was first published in the year 1525. It may be difficult for us to imagine today, but during the 1500s the very idea of an English language Bible was shocking and subversive.

A Forbidden Language

Throughout medieval times the English church was governed from Rome by the Pope. All over the Christian world, church services were conducted in Latin. By Tyndale’s day, vernacular Bibles were available in parts of Europe, where they added fuel to the popular and subversive arguments initiated by the monk, Martin Luther – a religious crisis known as the Reformation, which resulted in the splitting of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant Churches. But in England it was still strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into English.

Most people in Europe were unable to speak Latin, and so could not understand the Bible directly. The Church therefore acted as the mediator between God and the people, with Priests interpreting the bible on behalf of their congregations.

But Tyndale believed that ordinary people should be able to read the Bible for themselves, and this spurred him to translate the Bible into English. He wrote that the Church authorities banned translations of the Bible in order 'to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine... and to exalt their own honour... above God himself.' But his Bible was highly illegal: the book was banned, and Tyndale was eventually executed.
Tyndale's bible
Quote:
English Biblical Translation Before the King James Bible

At the Council of Oxford convened in 1408, Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, effectively killed all formal efforts to translate and disseminate the Bible in English. Translating, reading, and in some cases even owning English Bibles became illegal and punishable by stiff penalties, ranging from fines and imprisonment, to excommunication and even death. But in spite of Arundel's decree, the desire for vernacular Bibles in England continued to simmer, eventually coming to a boil with William Tyndale's translation project of the mid-1520s. Between 1525 and the publication of the King James Bible in 1611, no fewer than eight major translation and revision projects had been undertaken to meet the growing demand for a Bible that would be accessible to English readers. Featured here are examples of each of these translation efforts.
The King James Bible Virtual Exhibit

This is a quote from the Ohio State University. It means this information is credentialed, not my bias, etc.

"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."- The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 ADSource: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Scolar Press, London, England Copyright 1980 by Edward Peters,ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195

The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned..."- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.

"Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication. They showed that even "the Bible" was once on the blacklist. Translations of the holy book ended up on the bonfires along with other ``heretical'' works...The Index of Forbidden Books and all excommunications relating to it were officially abolished in 1966. The Inquisition itself was established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233...."-Vatican archives reveal Bible was once banned book By Jude Webber ROME, Jan 22, 1998 (Reuters)

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/did_rome_forbic_vernacular_versions.html

I. From Wycliffe to King James: the Period of Challenge

Wycliffe believed that each man was directly accountable to God. But if each person was directly accountable to God, then they needed to have the Bible translated into their own language. You can catch Wycliffe’s passion and directness in these words of his:

Those Heretics who pretend that the laity need not know God’s law but that the knowledge which priests have had imparted to them by word of mouth is sufficient, do not deserve to be listened to. For Holy Scriptures is the faith of the Church, and the more widely its true meaning becomes known the better it will be. Therefore since the laity should know the faith, it should be taught in whatever language is most easily comprehended… [After all,] Christ and His apostles taught the people in the language best known to them.9

https://bible.org/seriespage/part-i-wycliffe-king-james-period-challenge#_ftn13

In other words, if they allowed the common people to have the Bible, we could then challenge the Priests, the Papacy, the government, etc. That is why the Bible was banned.

I'll give you an example. If you were a priest in those days, you didn't want to get fired. You wanted job security. This kind of talk is what would get the average priest fired in those days:

In summary, believers are called "kings and priests" and a "royal priesthood" as a reflection of their privileged status as heirs to the kingdom of the Almighty God and of the Lamb. Because of this privileged closeness with God, no other earthly mediator is necessary. Second, believers are called priests because salvation is not merely “fire insurance,” escape from hell. Rather, believers are called by God to serve Him by offering up spiritual sacrifices, i.e., being a people zealous for good works. As priests of the living God, we are all to give praise to the One who has given us the great gift of His Son's sacrifice on our behalf, and in response, to share this wonderful grace with others.

Is the priesthood of all believers biblical?
http://www.gotquestions.org/priesthood-believers.html

In other words, I don't need a veil mender to come to God. I can come to God without a priest. I don't have to speak to God's butler. I can come to God myself.
The priesthood felt threatened so that is why they banned the Bible.