Author Topic: Bible Translations  (Read 209282 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #320 on: February 19, 2012, 06:59:12 AM »
Rick, we have a slew of examples here in this topic:

http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=783.msg77555#msg77555

Yes, but you dont have why Wescott and Hort did it, and I will post that when I get home...

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #321 on: February 19, 2012, 10:23:10 AM »
Well before going into the issue, let me first give a explanation of who Westcott and Hort were for those who may not know, 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 new version.

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..."

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #322 on: February 19, 2012, 10:28:04 AM »
The King James was the primary Bible in use, and it was the guardian of the Reformation. The Church of England used the King James Bible exclusively and it was the Bible of the Puritans, Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Quakers, the Baptists and became the Bible of the Pilgrims (some had used the Geneva Bible earlier).

The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. When the Methodist Revival stirred England in the 1700's, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodists, made his own translation of the New Testament but it found little acceptance, even among Methodists. Over one hundred fifty English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880, however, they found no audience. In America, it was read from American pulpits and in the great majority of American households during colonial times, the Authorized Version shaped the style, informed the intellect, affected the laws, and decreed the morals of the North American Colonies and American public schools were built around the King James Bible.

The only religious group of any size or importance in England that didn’t use the King James Bible was Roman Catholicism. In America, the Roman Catholic minority objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only.

The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700's and 1800's. The missionaries from England and the United States translated the Bible into 760 languages from the King James Bible.

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.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 that 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.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #323 on: February 19, 2012, 10:30:44 AM »
Now both member held ideas that even know seem a bit odd for Christian churchmen, even if Anglican. 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.”

( La Salette is 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).

Now what is interesting is the unique Catholic beliefs or doctrines which they subscribed to...

Hort was a very real believer in the Roman Catholic doctrine of "purgatory." To Rev. John Ellerton he wrote in 1854:

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory, but I fully and unwaveringly agree with him in the three cardinal points of the controversy: (1) that eternity is independent of duration; (2) that the power of repentance is not limited to this life; (3) that it is not revealed whether or not all will ultimately repent. The modern denial of the second has, I suppose, had more to do with the despiritualizing of theology then almost anything that could be named."

and in another letter to others.....

The idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements; and, though little is directly said respecting the future state, it seems to me incredible that the Divine chastisements should in this respect change their character when this visible life is ended.

"I do not hold it contradictory to the Article to think that the condemned doctrine has not been wholly injurious, inasmuch as it has kept alive some sort of belief in a great and important truth."

Hort seem to think we all need to do the Catholic style severe self-afflicted penances or suffering in his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.

"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."


Hort also believed that the Roman Catholic teaching of "baptismal regeneration" was more correct than the "evangelical" teaching.

"...at the same time in language stating that we maintain 'Baptismal Regeneration' as the most important of doctrines ... the pure 'Romish' view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical." (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).


He also states that, "Baptism assures us that we are children of God, members of Christ and His body, and heirs of the heavenly kingdom."

Here we find Hort assuring his eldest son, Arthur, that his infant baptism was his salvation:

"You were not only born into the world of men. You were also born of Christian parents in a Christian land. While yet an infant you were claimed for God by being made in Baptism an unconscious member of His Church, the great Divine Society which has lived on unceasingly from the Apostles' time till now. You have been surrounded by Christian influences; taught to lift up your eyes to the Father in heaven as your own Father; to feel yourself in a wonderful sense a member or part of Christ, united to Him by strange invisible bonds; to know that you have as your birthright a share in the kingdom of heaven."

Hort said he saw no difference between Jesus worship or Mary worship, and said, “They have much in common in there causes and results.”

Hort seemed almost intent on taking down the beliefs held from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text in the Authorized Version: "Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind...The positive doctrines even of the 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" (Life, Vol.I, p.400).

Here comes what I think was behind what drove Hort (with 'substantial Church' I take as meaning the Catholic chuch): "I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary. (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).

As for Westcott, here are some of quotes and review of his beliefs which give you an idea of his bent: "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.

Westcott did not believe that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally. He also thought that "Moses" and "David" were poetic characters whom Jesus Christ referred to by name only because the common people accepted them as authentic. Westcott states:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere. Are we not going through a trial in regard to the use of popular language on literary subjects like that through which we went, not without sad losses in regard to the use of popular language on physical subjects? If you feel now that it was, to speak humanly, necessary that the Lord should speak of the 'sun rising,' it was no less necessary that he would use the names 'Moses' and 'David' as His contemporaries used them. There was no critical question at issue. (Poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than History; this is a private parenthesis for myself alone.)"

Westcott believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was not a physical coming but a spiritual coming and in 'other comings' which I can only think of as manifistations such as the virgin Mary appearing or as such events: "As far as I can remember, I said very shortly what I hold to be the 'Lord's coming' in my little book on the Historic Faith. I hold very strongly that the Fall of Jerusalem was the coming which first fulfilled the Lord's words; and, as there have been other comings, I cannot doubt that He is 'coming' to us now."

Now it makes sense if you look at the Wescott La Salette quote again. “...the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself not in one form but many.” Now you see what he believed.


RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #324 on: February 19, 2012, 10:32:20 AM »
From what I have come across, it appears Westcott, denied the existance of Heaven and believed Heaven to be a state and not a literal place as seen in this that he wrote: "No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ's glorified humanity with place; 'heaven is a state and not a place.'"

Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead as both believed it possible to communicate with the dead. Wescott and Hort even went into the occult and started a society to investigate ghosts and the supernatural.

They slowly fed others the changes they were making and so were ready when the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 met and steered it away from the Textus Receptus and Antiochian text and into the Alexandria codices and its changes.

They had compiled their own Greek text from Alexandrian manuscripts, which, though unpublished and inferior to the Textus Receptus, they secreted little by little to the Revision Committee. The result being a totally new 'Alexandrian' English Bible instead of a "revision" of the Authorized Version or KJV, as it was claimed to be.

In Samuel Gipps book, An Understandable History of the Bible, we read:“In 1870 the…church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version. A gleam of hope shone in the eye of every Roman Catholic. An eager anticipation filled every Jesuit inspired Protestant scholar…although it was meant to correct a few supposed “error” in the Authorized Version, the textual critics of the day assured themselves that they would never again have to submit to the divine authority of the Universal Text.”

When they finished, the pure text was changed in 36,191 places. The result of all these changes is confusion in the diety of Christ for new readers or mistrust by others of the scriptures, so in my opinion their purpose was accomplised in one form or the other.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #325 on: February 19, 2012, 10:47:35 AM »
Now I have to tell something that I came across that just floored me. First it seemed to me from their quotes and ideas that they were being influenced by someone or by something towards Catholic doctrine and traditions and  there was this period a stiring of activity of Jesuit or Catholic ideas in England and it appears Westcott and Hort became entagled with them. I cant find evidence for Hort but Westcott was deeply involced with John Newman, who from all appearances seemed to be a mentor. Lets take a look at who he is as I looked up his background...


....John Henry Newman, D.D., C.O. (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890), also referred to as Cardinal Newman and Blessed John Henry Newman, was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.

Originally an evangelical Oxford academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman was a leader in the Oxford Movement. This influential grouping of Anglicans wished to return the Church of England to many Catholic beliefs and forms of worship traditional in the medieval times to restore ritual expression. In 1845 Newman left the Church of England and was received into the Roman Catholic Church where he was eventually granted the rank of cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.....

Interesting to say the least, a Jesuit hiding in plain sight, seems possible.

What are your thoughts.......?


Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 44477
  • Grace, more than a word, it is transforming power
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #326 on: February 19, 2012, 09:45:45 PM »
Share with us Westcott's relationship with Newman.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #327 on: February 20, 2012, 07:19:03 AM »
Newman was the leader of the Oxford Movement and Westcott was one of the younger members. This movement amound Aglicans started in Cambridge and also Oxford to renew the Church of England to the true teachings of the early church. But in reality it was being guided back to the mysticism and spiritualism of the corrupted Roman Catholic church. Newman was one of the main leaders in Oxford, and pushed for the reinstatement of 'lost Christian traditions'  and their inclusion into Anglican liturgy and theology. It become known as the Oxford Movement and were known as Newmanites (pre-1845) and Puseyites (post-1845) after the two prominent leaders , John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey.



As a Cambridge undergraduate Westcott was a part of the movement and was in contact with Newman who was a more recognized leader, and organised a club which he named Hermes, a mythological guide of departed souls to Hades. This club met from 1845-48 and was evidently a precursor to the Ghost Club.   Westcott and Hort were among the founders of the Ghost Club (or “Bogie Club” as scoffers called it) in 1850, with the purpose of investigating “ghosts and all supernatural appearances. In later years the followers of the Oxford movement placed increasing emphasis on the responsibility of Christians in the life of society and have given much attention to social problems. This social concern led to the foundation of the Christian Social Union in 1889 under Brooke Foss Westcott and Henry Scott Holland.
 

Here is some background that I came accross on the Jesuits and Newman...

In their unwearied efforts to restore the primacy of the papal faith in Britain through its educational institutions, the Jesuits did not overlook the institution which epitomized English educational excellence—the University of Oxford. Indeed Dr. Desanctis asserted that there were

a greater number of Jesuits [in Britain] than in Italy. Desanctis, Popery and Jesuitism in Rome, 128, quoted in Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement, 33

Since Dr. Desanctis had held the position of professor of Theology in Rome and official Theological Censor of the Inquisition and was himself a member of the Jesuit order before converting to Protestantism, we can give credence to his report. Indeed the same author claimed:

There are Jesuits in all classes of society: in Parliament, among the English clergy, among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. Ibid.

So successful were these Jesuit infiltrators that in the middle of the nineteenth century, the entire ecclesiastical history of Britain was revised. In his insightful work, the historian J.A. Froude related his own experiences during this period at the University of Oxford:

In my first term at the University, the controversial fires were beginning to blaze. . . . I had learnt, like other Protestant children, that the Pope was Antichrist, and that Gregory VII had been a special revelation of that being. I was now taught that Gregory VII was a saint. I had been told to honour the Reformers. The Reformation became a great schism, Cranmer a traitor, and Latimer a vulgar ranter. Milton was a name of horror. J.A.Froude, Short Studies on Great Subjects, 161, 167, quoted in B.G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, 123

Since Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Latimer were martyred for their opposition to the Roman Catholic faith and Milton was one of the great Protestant poets, this alteration in historical perception by the University of Oxford was a matter of no minor importance. In terms of belief this change meant that while in 1833 Anglicans in Britain believed that the Reformation was the work of God, that the pope was antichrist, and that the celebration of the Mass was satanic, a mere half-century later most Anglicans saw the Reformation as rebellion and the pope as the true successor of the apostles, while many participated in the services of the Mass.

Precisely one hundred years before our birth, the Oxford movement commenced. J.H. Newman was the leading founder of this movement. Newman had entered the University of Oxford as an Evangelical Christian but already the Jesuit influence was so strong that his professors, particularly Hawkins, the provost of Oriel College in Oxford, were teaching that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of tradition. Newman graduated from Oxford University with his Bachelor of Arts degree, and in 1823 was elected a fellow of Oriel College. As a fellow of Oriel College, Newman fell under the influence of numerous persons purporting to belong to the Church of England, but possessing a strong anti-Protestant and anti-Evangelical bias.

In 1833 Newman made a tour of Europe, making Rome his principal destination. While there, he sent a message to the pope requesting details of the terms upon which the Church of England could be accepted by the Church of Rome. The answer he received was that the Church of England must accept the findings of the Council of Trent. That Council, which had been called to counter the spread of Protestantism, had uplifted tradition and had devised plans to destroy the influence of the Protestant Reformation.


ltvvaughn

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 716
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #328 on: February 20, 2012, 10:20:19 AM »
It is truly amazing that people don't know the history of these new translations/paraphrases.  I generally use the KJV and some of the literal translations for my study and preaching.  Only on rare occasions do I use any of the new translations like the NIV or similar.  When you compare the "changes," the agenda begins to become clear.  Diminish the significance of the deity of Christ, and you are left with a watered down gospel and a weakened, distorted plan of salvation.  Yes, I know that the KJV has problems as well ("I say unto you today . . ."), but I believe it is the purest form of scripture available, the least tainted with translation errors and omissions.  And if you are studying with someone, it is the one that is most accepted.  Not that that is the reason to use it, but most recognize it as the best translation.  The others normally aren't offended when you use the KJV either.  I wish more people would read and understand about these new translations/paraphrases.  "Study to show thyself approved . . ."

LtV
LtV
If we can't be united in Truth . . . we dare not unite at all!

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #329 on: February 20, 2012, 10:29:25 AM »
It is truly amazing that people don't know the history of these new translations/paraphrases.  I generally use the KJV and some of the literal translations for my study and preaching.  Only on rare occasions do I use any of the new translations like the NIV or similar.  When you compare the "changes," the agenda begins to become clear.  Diminish the significance of the deity of Christ, and you are left with a watered down gospel and a weakened, distorted plan of salvation.  Yes, I know that the KJV has problems as well ("I say unto you today . . ."), but I believe it is the purest form of scripture available, the least tainted with translation errors and omissions.  And if you are studying with someone, it is the one that is most accepted.  Not that that is the reason to use it, but most recognize it as the best translation.  The others normally aren't offended when you use the KJV either.  I wish more people would read and understand about these new translations/paraphrases.  "Study to show thyself approved . . ."

LtV
Oh but it gets better...I had a fellow Adventist tell me that the "Septuagint" showed some of the same  text and supported the new versions. So I went to look and what I found was amazing. The "Septuagint" was a complete lie, to get Christians to accept the corrupted Greek Translations of the Alexandrian Codices. Christians had seen the corruption that was being put into the manuscripts so were wary of anything from Alexandria and were able to figure them out. But the "Septuagint" was presented in a manner which hid its true writers and made it seem as if true Hebrews scholars did the translation and gave it status that it did not deserve, let me check my notes and see if I can post it.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #330 on: February 20, 2012, 10:32:39 AM »
I am still researching this issue, but let me give you what I came across so far on the "Septuagint":

What is the "Septuagint" origin, or the Alexandrian Codices?

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 legitamacy. But why...

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 refereing 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? I would venture to say no.


ejclark

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 679
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #331 on: February 20, 2012, 04:26:52 PM »
To continue, the versions after Wescott and Horts revision using the Alexandrian text, showed the wholesale changes and deletions. Thousands of changes great and small were made and if you look at the following verses you see some of the important beliefs they subtley try to destroy with these newer versions:
1 John 5:7
Removal of the Trinity
KJV-For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
NIV----For there are three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost
RSV---( missing )
Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
NIV---- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
RSV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV-wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
NIV----and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
RSV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.
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.
I would add:
Exo. 20:10
KJV seventh day is the Sabbath
NIV seventh day is a Sabbath
Lev. 23:3
KJV seventh day is the Sabbath
NIV seventh day is a Sabbath
This is the same in nearly all new versions.  Makes it possible to nail the Sabbath to the cross.
Rev. 13:18
KJV the number is the number of a man
Most new versions the number is the mark of the beast.

I have a feeling it will be very hard to convince someone the mark of the beast is Sunday sacredness when their Bible says the mark is a number.  Specially since the same Bible teaches the Sabbath was nailed to the cross.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #332 on: February 21, 2012, 03:49:24 AM »
Well it caused terrible confusion and wrong doctrines to rise, it first led to Arianism which could not be refuted because of the corrupted Ghostic codices. Since the Septuagint was picked up by the Christians in Rome along with Alexandria and considered the text that Jesus used, the Arians won every argument at the councils and before the Emperors, so the bishop of Rome tried other means to gain the upper hand. Yet the  deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines, and they didnt comprehend the corrupted text was the main cause.

Jerome was one of the first to notice the issues in the text, and  began in 382 to do a translation correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament which was used in Rome, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to the Hebrew Bible, but he had previously translated portions from the Septuagint, so there was still some corrupted text translated into the Vulgate.

Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint. Jerome's decision to use a true Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians in Rome, who considered the Septuagint inspired.

Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, defending his translation choices, mostly the text which were not from the Septuagint. Unlike his contemporaries, he emphasizes the difference between the Apocrypha which he felt was not to be included and the Hebrew Canon.  So he tried to put in the correct text and books but the leaders in Rome forced him to include the Apocrypha which he knew should not be included. So you can see what damage the Vulgate did including these books, and being still partly based on the Septuagint, but at least Jerome tried to do what was right in his translation.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #333 on: February 23, 2012, 03:29:21 AM »
Now as I read through the historical there are basically two stream of manuscripts, those afftect or using the Alexandrian Codices which diminish the diety of Christ and bring in a gnostic viewpoint into play, and the true text which the faithful believers guarded carefully and passed on. Now lets look on how it go to the Reformers and changed history...

There was a people which picked up the true text from the 2nd century and eventually came to be known as the Wadensees. The  Waldensees had Bibles which came from the Majority Text line of manuscripts or Textus Receptus and Mrs. White says their Bibles were of the pure form.

The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples 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. They declared the Church of Rome to be the apostate Babylon of the Apocalypse, and at the peril of their lives they stood up to resist her corruptions. While, under the pressure of long-continued persecution, some compromised their faith, little by little yielding its distinctive principles, others held fast the truth. Through ages of darkness and apostasy, there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath. Under the fiercest tempests of opposition they maintained their faith. Though gashed by the Savoyard spear, and scorched by the Romish fagot, they stood unflinchingly for God's word and his honor. They would not yield one iota of the truth. {4SP 70.1}

The Lord has pronounced a curse upon those who take from or add to the Scriptures. The great I AM has decided what shall constitute the rule of faith and doctrine, and he has designed that the Bible shall be a household book. The church that holds to the word of God is irreconcilably separated from Rome. Protestants were once thus apart from this great church of apostasy, but they have approached more nearly to her, and are still in the path of reconciliation to the Church of Rome. Rome never changes. Her principles have not altered in the least. She has not lessened the breach between herself and Protestants; they have done all the advancing. But what does this argue for the Protestantism of this day? It is the rejection of Bible truth which makes men approach to infidelity. It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the Papacy. {ST, February 19, 1894 par. 4}

So, the Bibles which have been influenced by the corrupted Alexandrian codices should be struck from our list as unreliable and unsafe. Conversely, the Bible of the Waldensians is commended by Mrs. White. Their Bible was of the Majority Text. So is the King James Version.

The NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, RV, NRSV, etc. were translated, not from the Majority Text, but from the Alexandrian Text, i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and we need to be aware of the danger they hold.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #334 on: February 23, 2012, 03:31:39 AM »
Here are a few things I came across on the Waldensians....

John Wesley has this to say about the Vaudois or Waldenses: "It is a vulgar mistake, that the Waldenses were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons. They were much more ancient than him; and their true name was Vallenses or Vaudois from their inhabiting the valleys of Lucerne and Agrogne. This name, Vallenses, after Waldo appeared about the year 1160, was changed by the Papists into Waldenses, on purpose to represent them as of modern original." (Notes on the Revelation of John, Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 6, p. 936.)

Here is an important fact cited by Jonathan Edwards: "Some of the popish writers themselves own, that this people never submitted to the church of Rome. One of the popish writers, speaking of the Waldenses, says, The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the world. It is supposed that they first betook themselves to this place among the mountains, to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions which existed before Constantine the Great [272-337 AD]. And thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent" (The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 4, Work of Redemption., Period 3 - From Christ's Resurrection to the End Of the World, Part 4, p. 229.)

Here is some history..."There is abundant evidence that the history of the Waldenses dates back to the time of the apostles. It is their claim that their religion passed to them from the apostles and in fact even the writings of their enemies give credence to this. (Note that the Waldenses were called by several different names: Leonists, Vallenses, Valsenses, Vaudois and others.)

Reinerius Sasso was a well informed Inquisitor of the thirteenth century. He had once been a pastor among the Waldenses but had apostatized and become their persecutor. The book The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses by George Faber gives a translation of this testimony on page 272. His testimony described the Leonists (Waldenses) as being the most ‘pernicious’ of the sects of heretics for three reasons. The first reason was because of their longer continuance, for they had lasted from the time of Pope Sylvester or even from the Apostles. Secondly, because there was scarcely a land where they did not exist. And the third reason being because they lived justly before all men and blasphemed only against the Roman church and clergy while maintaining every point concerning the Deity and the articles of faith which made their doctrine appeal to the populous. He also writes that they were simple, modest people who instructed their children first in the Decalogue of the law, the Ten Commandments. (See Truth Triumphant, 254.)

Faber also shares the testimony of Pilichdorf, also of the thirteenth century, who writes that the Valdenses claimed to have existed from the time of Pope Sylvester. Claude Scyssel, the Archbishop of Turin, who lived in the neighborhood of the Waldenses in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries tells us that the Valdenses of Piedmont were followers of a person named Leo. In the time of Emperor Constantine, Leo, on account of the avarice of Pope Sylvester and the excesses of the Roman Church, seceded from that communion, and drew after him all those who entertained right sentiments concerning the Christian Religion. (See The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, 276.).."


James A. Wylie (1808-1890) describes the "apostolicity of the Churches of the Waldensian valleys" with the observation that "Rome manifestly was the schismatic," while the Vaudois or Waldenses deserved the "valid title of the True Church," and even the Waldenses' "greatest enemies, Claude Seyssel of Turin (1517), and Reynerius the Inquisitor (1250), have admitted their antiquity, and stigmatized them as 'the most dangerous of all heretics, because the most ancient'" (excerpted from "The History of Protestantism" Volume 1, Book 1, Chapter 6 "The Waldenses - Their Valleys" ---New Window [1878] by James A. Wylie). Since the Byzantine Manuscripts commonly accessible to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) were used in his production of the Greek New Testament, which formed the Textus Receptus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), their use demonstrated a continuity with the Vaudois. The Vaudois Christians had likewise used and preserved the ancient Byzantine manuscripts of Antioch in the form of Latin Scripture; and, their survival.. from the time of the Early Church until the sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") of the Protestant Reformation (1521) is testament that the True Church and the True Word of God did continuously testify against the False Church and False Scriptures of the Whore of Rome-- and triumphed! "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our Faith" (1John 5:4). The Vaudois rendezvous with the Protestant Reformation represents a Divine Approval of the Reformation, in that the Ancient Christian Church of the Vaudois attested to the Truth of the Reformers, and specifically to the validity of the Scriptures of the Reformers, which were used to translate the Textus Receptus Bibles of the Reformation, i.e., the Spanish Reina-Valera (1569), the Italian Diodati (1603), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Tyndale New Testament (1536), the Great Bible (1539), the Bishops Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1560-1599), and, of course, the King James Bible (1611). "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 24:6). Significantly, men of God, such as John Wesley (1703-1791) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), have attested to the accuracy of understanding that the Vaudois Christians were not merely a more recent vintage of Protestant reaction to the Church of Rome, coming upon the scene through Peter Waldo in twelfth century France (1171 AD), but that the Vaudois were ancient Christians, who preserved their Christianity along with the Scriptures-- separate from the Church of Rome-- as far back as the early second century AD.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #335 on: February 24, 2012, 01:53:47 AM »
Now Ellen White said that the Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures, so how did that happen. Well lets follow the manuscripts of the various versions that followed the Textus Receptus in a timeline so we can see how it was preserved till the Reformers came across it and the KJV came into widespread use.

These versions include:
The Vaudois/Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards),
The Peshitta Version (AD 150),
The Italic Bible (AD 157),
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] http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm

Or looking at it from the origins or where it comes from:
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The ancient 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 or original documents
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Vaudois/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)



These early Greek text that followed the Textus Receptus or Received Text as it was later called, was soon translated into old Latin before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible. 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. The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, and more importantly the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text or  the Textus Receptus .

Now from "OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED" by
Benjamin Wilkinson, PhD. had the following on the connection to Calvin...

"FOUR Bibles produced under Waldensian influence touched the
history of CALVIN: namely, a GREEK, a WALDENSIAN vernacular, a
FRENCH, and an ITALIAN. Calvin himself was led to his great work by OLIVETAN, a Waldensian. Thus was the Reformation brought to Calvin.......FAREL, also a Waldensian, besought him to come to Geneva and open up a work there. Calvin felt that he should labor in Paris. According to LEGER, Calvin recognized a relationship to the Calvins of the valley of St. Martin, one of the Waldensian Valley(Allix, Churches of Piedmont, pp. 288, 11).

Finally, PERSECUTION in Paris and the solicitation of Farel
caused Calvin to settle at GENEVA, where, with, BEZA, he brought out an edition of the Textus Receptus......Of BEZA, Dr. Edgar says that he "astonished and confounded the world" with the Greek MSS he unearthed. This later edition of the Received Text is in reality a Greek NT brought out under
Waldensian influnce. Unquestianbly, the LEADERS of the Reformation, GERMAN,FRENCH, and ENGLISH, were CONVINCED that the Received Text was the GENUINE NT, not ONLY by its OWN irresistible history and INTERNAL evidence, but ALSO because it MATCHED with the Received text which the Waldensian form came down from in the days of the apostles."


This one connects the Waldensian bibles with another Reformer, Martin Luther....

The Waldensian Church. It is not certain how far back this church can be dated, but they were using a Bible that corresponds to the Traditional Text long before the Reformation. They lived in the valleys of Northern Italy and Southern France, in the regions of Turin, Milan and Lyons. There is a popular belief that the Waldensians were founded by Peter Waldo in 1174. However, they are mentioned by name in a document called the Noble Lesson, written about 1100, so Peter Waldo could only have consolidated and strengthened a movement that already existed. There are reasons to believe that the Waldensians have a very early history which has become obscured because many documents were destroyed during persecutions by the Roman Catholic Church. The Waldensians have beliefs and practices that are similar to the Protestant Churches of today, and can be regarded as the predecessors of the Protestant Reformation. The Waldensian Bible is believed to be the source text for the German Tepl Bible, which was in turn used by Martin Luther when he produced his own Lutheran New Testament.

and here is some more background....

"The precise origin of the mediaeval German Bible is still unknown. Dr. Ludwig Keller of Münster first suggested in his Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien, Leipzig, 1885, pp. 257-260, the hypothesis that it was made by Waldenses (who had also a Romanic version); and he tried to prove it in his Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen, Leipzig, 1886 (189 pages). Dr. Hermann Haupt, of Würzburg, took the same ground in his Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen Waldenser in dem Codex Teplensis und der ersten gedruckten Bibel nachgewiesen, Würzburg, 1885 (64 pages); and again, in self-defense against Jostes, in Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis und der vor-lutherischen deutschen Bibeldrucke, Würzburg, 1886."

and finally some more of what Ellen White says on this:
Behind the lofty bulwarks of the mountains,--in all ages the refuge of the persecuted and oppressed,--the Waldenses found a hiding-place. Here the light of truth was kept burning amid the darkness of the Middle Ages. Here, for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith. {GC88 65.2}

and note in a later passage what she says on how the true faith was preserved:
The gospel had been planted in Bohemia as early as the ninth century. The Bible was translated, and public worship was conducted in the language of the people. But as the power of the pope increased, so the Word of God was obscured. Gregory VII., who had taken it upon him "to pull down the pride of kings," was no less intent upon enslaving the people, and accordingly a bull was issued forbidding public worship to be conducted in the Bohemian tongue. The pope declared that "God was pleased that his worship should be celebrated in an unknown tongue, and that a neglect of this rule had given rise to many evils and heresies." Thus Rome decreed that the light of God's Word should be extinguished, and the people should be shut up in darkness. But Heaven had provided other agencies for the preservation of the church. Many of the Waldenses and Albigenses, driven by persecution from their homes in France and Italy, came to Bohemia. Though they dared not teach openly, they labored zealously in secret. Thus the true faith was preserved from century to century. {GC88 97.1}

So the Bible at the heart of the Reformation seems to date back to that which the Waldenses and others had as the Received Text or Textus Receptus and what Ellen White what shown is confirmed by history.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 44477
  • Grace, more than a word, it is transforming power
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #336 on: February 24, 2012, 08:51:45 AM »
This is a lot of information to take in.  If it is accurate, it will help those who have not come to a knowledge of the problem with many of the new translations.  My understanding came from seeing the error in the new bibles and the consistency in the KJV.  I have never studied the history of the translations. Thanks for doing the research and sharing, Rick.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

RickH

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 199
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #337 on: February 24, 2012, 03:27:32 PM »
This is a lot of information to take in.  If it is accurate, it will help those who have not come to a knowledge of the problem with many of the new translations.  My understanding came from seeing the error in the new bibles and the consistency in the KJV.  I have never studied the history of the translations. Thanks for doing the research and sharing, Rick.
I was was very surprised to see history confirm what SOP tells us. I know I shouldnt be, but I always am nevertheless, and next weeks lesson is on 'The Bible and History', so I will prepare a history for everyone to read. It will be interesting to say the least...

God Bless Richard and Happy Sabbath..

Marelis

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1020
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #338 on: February 26, 2012, 12:24:50 PM »
Hi Rick.  Thank you for sharing this information.  There is a lot and I will sit down and read it closely as soon as time permits.
"Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."  Ps 16:11

Cop

  • Senior Moderator
  • Posts: 1439
Re: Bible Translations
« Reply #339 on: September 24, 2012, 09:25:58 PM »
I'm too lazy to read through all the poats and do not know if it has been mention here before. Has anyone heard of the Serenity Bible? I just read in the Southwest Union Record of a SDA church using this Bible. What is it?
My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me....That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave."
— Stonewall Jackson