King James Only

[ktgrok]

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2009/07/15/why-did-the-catholic-church-prevent-vernacular-bible-translations/

[FaithManor]

What I find quite disturbing is Teannika's ntinued assertion that the great missionary efforts only occured due this one translation. Yet the historical record does not even come close tos upporting this claim.

 

Many nations were presented with the gospel in the Latin Vulgate which was widely understood and was the trade and academic language of the day. The Celts converted under the influence of St. Patrick who wasn't speaking to them in English! It is an insult to the many German missionaries who spread through the lands with their German Bibles. The first known German Bible "Wulfila" dates to 311-380 AD and was profoundly influential in establishing Christian vocabulary that would be used throught Europe. And as for English evangelism, the KJV was highly suspect in its day, and the Geneva Bible was published 50 years prior to the KJV during the heart of the reformation so a legitimate argument could more easily be made that the Geneva Bible had a much greater influence over evangelism than the KJV which would remain suspect for many years.

 

The spread of missionaries post 1611 has nothing whateoever to do with the KJV and has everything to do with the maps and sea routes created by explorers so it was actually possible to travel long distances by ship or over land with some degree of accuracy. As ships became sturdier for travel on the high seas and trade routes established there were simply more opportunities to travel.

[Bluegoat]

It's a bit of a weird argument all round, given that one of the reasons for the development of the KJV was to uphold the more catholic elements of the Church of England against the changes the puritans wanted things like retaining bishops and liturgy.

 

I also find it weird to be on the non-KJV side of the discussion since I would argue it should be the normative liturgical text for Anglicans.

[thewaka]

the killing of Michael Servatus by John Calvin

 

John Calvin did not kill Servetus. You can choose to disagree with Calvinist theology and still tell the truth about Calvin's part in the death of Servetus.

[thewaka]

Funny how people forget that "Vulgate" means it was the vernacular!!! As in, not in Hebrew and Greek. Sigh. 

 

Yup! And why aren't they Vulgate onlyists instead? It had been in use for 1200 years when the KJV was published.

 

Can anyone else understand how the KJV can be complete if there aren't complete OT and NT in original languages? That, to me, sounds like the KJV *must* have been reinspired, leading to Ruckman's position that if the Hebrew or Greek differ from the KJV, then change the Hebrew or Greek!

[Violet Crown]

The spread of missionaries post 1611 has nothing whateoever to do with the KJV and has everything to do with the maps and sea routes created by explorers so it was actually possible to travel long distances by ship or over land with some degree of accuracy. As ships became sturdier for travel on the high seas and trade routes established there were simply more opportunities to travel.

 

And the spread of Bible translations to the middle class had a lot to do with the invention of the printing press. It's always a little weird to hear the Catholics blamed for not widely disseminating the Bible, when it had to be copied entirely by hand.

 

Once the Age of Exploration was underway, translating was going on everywhere. As soon as the Jesuits were in Japan, for instance, they began translating the Bible into Japanese. Yet I only recently got to hear that it was too bad the Japanese peasant converts weren't given copies of the Bible so they could keep their faith alive when the Jesuits were expelled; and that this was more evidence that The Catholic Church Hates the Bible. (Of course, they did keep the faith alive....)

 

 

It's a bit of a weird argument all round, given that one of the reasons for the development of the KJV was to uphold the more catholic elements of the Church of England against the changes the puritans wanted things like retaining bishops and liturgy.

 

I also find it weird to be on the non-KJV side of the discussion since I would argue it should be the normative liturgical text for Anglicans.

I like to think of it as being on the Non-made-up-stuff side of the argument.

[thewaka]

I also find it weird to be on the non-KJV side of the discussion since I would argue it should be the normative liturgical text for Anglicans.

 

I don't think you are "non-KJV." I am not anti-KJV. I *am* anti-"KJV for everyone because the rest are the tools of Satan." My pastor uses the KJV and he is also not an Onlyist. That position often seems to say that if you don't believe in using only the KJV, then you are saying it is a bad translation, you don't support the deity of Christ, etc. And far too many who are KJVO are not well-read in history and with little knowledge of how translation works. I have no problem whatsoever with those who prefer the KJV but don't make it a legalistic requirement of all Christians.

[TechWife]

I just want to clarify on the above quoted sentence and then I will read your links.

 

I'd like to end that sentence with '.... Utilised by all nations to communicate between each other.'

I'll probably still be contested on that, but that's what I am meaning when referring to a main world language that is being used to cross barriers between nationalities. It is a significant language and not so minor as seems to be being argued here.

 

Have you ever watched a session of the UN? They all have earpieces/headphones on because they are listening to whoever is speaking being translated into their own language. 

 

Someone from Japan speaks in Japanese. Someone from the United Kingdom hears it translated into English through their earpiece, someone from France hears it translated into French through their earpiece, and so on. 

 

I will say that interpreted is actually a more accurate word - spoken word is interpreted, written word is translated. Many people use translation for both. 

 

No one is arguing that  English is an insignificant language.  We are simply trying to get you to widen your horizons and realize that it is not a language that is understood by most people in the world. 

 

ETA: For the sake of clarity, since we are discussing the English language, when someone is speaking in English at the UN, their words are similarly interpreted/translated into languages appropriate to the individual listeners. Just as it is not assumed everyone understands Japanese, it is also assumed that not everyone understands English. The ambassadors to the United Nations from around the world are among the most educated in their respective nations. If they need an interpreter/translator, then I would assume that the typical citizen of their nation probably would as well. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by TechWife

[mommaduck]

John Calvin did not kill Servetus. You can choose to disagree with Calvinist theology and still tell the truth about Calvin's part in the death of Servetus.

If I remember correctly, Calvin even pleaded with Servetus to save his life. Servetus was basically banned from a particular city/region and was told not to come back (if Servetus believed himself correct, then even Scripture talks about shaking the dust from his sandals and leaving). Servetus was ornery and full enough of his own import that he came back as though no one could touch him, continued his preaching that had been forbidden, and suffered the legal consequences be had been warned of by the government of the area. He didn't have to die and he's not a martyr. Servetus was banned for preaching heresy (mainly denial of the Trinity) and without a license.

Edited November 19, 2015 by mommaduck

[TechWife]

Nearly ALL manuscripts are locked up somewhere. It's how they are protected.

 

Exactly. There was a traveling Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in our state capital a few years ago. They were in locked cases, with armed guards nearby. Why? So that no one could destroy or steal them - so that they could be preserved! 

[mommaduck]

NM, already found the answer.

Edited November 19, 2015 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

Teannika, I would like to encourage you to take some history classes outside of an IFB type Bible School. Perhaps interact with people on certain boards such as Catholic Answers (they have a non-Catholic board and the people there are great with sources). Heavens, even the PuritanBoard would be beneficial at this point (though anti-Catholic due to bring Reformed), as they enjoy a good discussion, sources, history, translational issues, etc. Less active, but also good, is Monachos (Eastern Orthodox).

 

I was raised IFB. Kinny, Stauffer, Hyles-Anderson, Jack Chick...heavens, one of my former pastors is on the board of BJU. I know the teachings, inside and out. I lived and breathed KJVOnlyism into my mid twenties. I lived and breathed premillenial dispensationalism until I was nearly thirty. Convincing you is not something I'm going to make my goal, but I will challenge you to start reading and searching outside of a limited circle. You have this preconceived view of a group of people based on what you've been told. I'm telling you that a lot of context has been left out, incomplete and downright inaccurate histories given, etc. And, ftr, no, not ALL IFB believe this way, but it's rampant enough in those circles to mention that the racist views on races/nations (kinism) is strongly held by many in those circles.

 

I will let this go for now.

 

Prayers,

Mommaduck

Edited November 19, 2015 by mommaduck

[thewaka]

Heavens, even the PuritanBoard would be beneficial at this point (though anti-Catholic due to bring Reformed), as they enjoy a good discussion, sources, history, translational issues, etc.

 

I *love* the PuritanBoard, but I am reformed :D

 

Many there are extremely well-read, and they aren't young guys in their 20s who just discovered Calvinism and are all fired up to convince other people. It is a very respectful place and you can learn a lot about reformed belief there from those who take accuracy in history and theology very seriously. It includes paedo and credo baptists as well as many who prefer the KJV for textual reasons.

 

I have visited the Catholic Answers forums, too. Active and interesting.

[Teannika]

Neither is it something to be proud of that you think that everyone, regardless of language, education and upbringing should only use one English Bible translation that is in a form of English that is difficult for current English speakers to understand. Let alone someone who is not fluent in English. Your children being able to read it is not a valid argument; it is anecdotal and ignores the fact that being able to read the words doesn't equate to understanding them. So it leaves all these other people in the position of needing someone more educated/better at reading KJ English to explain what it means, and I fail to see how that is different from the RC church forbidding the Bible to be translated into the common languages. Common English today is different from common English in 1611. You are saying that you don't think the Bible should be translated into a version today's common people can understand. Today's common English speakers have difficulty with Shakespeare, what makes you believe that they don't also have difficulty with the KJV?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Okay so you've just switched the topic from the spiritual battle that has been going on over God's words in relation to the RCC, to make it about me defending an outdated bible that can no longer be understood by the common person. I personally don't see it as an archaic vs modern English debate. Although I think that there are many things that can be discussed, pros and cons to both sides.

 

I'm not against modern English. I'm not against having scripture in modern English. I'm against modern English versions that do not use the recieved text. I'm against changing the words of God, and deleting them.

 

So while I realise that you see me as taking a hypocritical position, I don't see it like that. I can read passages in the NIV and go, "Wait, what is that saying?" I can come across harder words in the NIV that I need to look up in a dictionary. Many times I think that it is much easier to memorise something from the KJV than the NIV.

 

God can give everyone a children's bible if that's what is necessary. But what I am interested to discuss and understand is what are the preserved HOLY scriptures and where are they today. Scriptures that have been set apart. If God inspired and wrote them, then surely he has preserved them and kept the words intact throughout history. All translations are not in agreement as you are arguing for here.

[mommaduck]

If God inspired and wrote them

God did not write them. God did not dictate them. They were written by men that were inspired by God and their faith. Some were written by men recording histories at the behest of other men they are accredited to and were inspired by God and their faith.

[unsinkable]

[Teannika]

I know you were being cheeky, but really, it isn't just me and a few others who understand that there are three, not just two, main branches of Christianity. It doesn't help your case so very much to be so closed to reality (preferring your "understanding" over researchable fact). In the west, Catholic and protestant; in the east, Orthodoxy. Jesus was born into an eastern culture according to God's divine will, and the Holy Land is eastern to this day, so it's not easily dismissible.

 

I hear your passion for the topic at hand, Teannika. I in fact used to share it and would take the same tack that you are taking with us here. (Lord have mercy.) But your reliance on hazy early church history, strong anti-Catholic prejudice and judgment against anyone who doesn't do Christianity the "right" way (which is based on your own personal understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures, something actually warned against in those Scriptures) just don't go over very well in presenting your arguments.

 

It is not private interpretation to read in the bible that the disciples were commanded to take the gospel into all the world. And that's what happened. There is evidence that Britain recieved it in the first century, even in the time of Tiberius the emperor, under who Christ suffered. That Joseph of Arimathea was sent by Phillip from France to Britain.. God's word was taken across the seas, across Europe in the early centuries, Romania, Bulgaria.. I don't understand the viewpoint of one stream of church. The scriptures went throughout the world in an organic way. There wasn't a political church organisation overseeing what went where and having control and power over the scriptures for all people of all tongues.

[Guest]

"Organization" need not be opposed to "organic"--as you noted, Philip SENT Joseph.  Patrick was *sent* to Ireland.  It wasn't freewheeling; it was important that the same gospel be transmitted.  I think that is more the point of "one stream" -- it wasn't freelance.  

 

Organization is not always "political."  Organization is one way of being orderly.  

[milovany]

Have you read any of the early church fathers, Teannika?  Just a thought. Maybe try reading the Didache.  It's short and the earliest extra-Biblical document we have.  There are a lot of writings available about what church and faith were like. These aren't Scripture, per se, but that doesn't mean they're useless.  They give a picture of what faith just after the time of Christ and for the next few hundred years was like.  I think you might have an erroneous view of what the early church was like. There was organization, the believers were exhorted to listen to and follow their bishops, etc.  They were unified in purpose.  This is foundational.  Jesus had just said a few years before that He wanted them to be one.  So it's not hugely surprising that they would be one.

[ktgrok]

It is not private interpretation to read in the bible that the disciples were commanded to take the gospel into all the world. And that's what happened. There is evidence that Britain recieved it in the first century, even in the time of Tiberius the emperor, under who Christ suffered. That Joseph of Arimathea was sent by Phillip from France to Britain.. God's word was taken across the seas, across Europe in the early centuries, Romania, Bulgaria.. I don't understand the viewpoint of one stream of church. The scriptures went throughout the world in an organic way. There wasn't a political church organisation overseeing what went where and having control and power over the scriptures for all people of all tongues.

 

So, wait - you don't think that the churches in say, Britain, were part of the Catholic Church??? They were some separate thing? Really?

[Laura Corin]

So, wait - you don't think that the churches in say, Britain, were part of the Catholic Church??? They were some separate thing? Really?

Or is it that Britain had an 'organic' church that was later taken over by the Catholic church?

[mommaduck]

Or is it that Britain had an 'organic' church that was later taken over by the Catholic church?

Reread Patty Joanna's post.

[Violet Crown]

image.jpg

--Now, son, who's that?

--Saint Michael.

--Who's that?

--Saint Michael!

--And what did he do?

--He cast Satan out of Paradise.

--Good boy!

[Guest]

If you are interested, you can Google:

 

thomas church india

cyril methodius church slav

augustine canterbury england church

aristobulus seventy england church 

patrick ireland church

 

as well as looking at the missionary journeys of Paul to learn about the early missionary efforts of the Church.  

 

**I don't list specific links because I don't want to deal with "That source is too old/new/Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/wiki/fundamentalist to be trusted."  

 

One thing I find interesting is the repeated references to "xyz was sent by the Church at abc" or "...by the bishop of the Church at abc..."  

 

I will also note...no I'll do that in another post.  

 

 

[Guest]

Here's that other point:  "KJVO" is not unique in the world.  When Cyril and Methodius traveled to the Slavic countries as missionaries, they had to invent the Cyrillic alphabet in order to translate the scriptures into the local language.  That language is "Slavonic."  To this day, there are Orthodox Churches NOT in the Slavic lands, but right here in America which insist that the only legitimate language to use in the liturgy and in the scriptures is...Church Slavonic.  Which is NOT modern Russian...it's like learning middle English (or about like that--I'm not an expert).  I guess because it is "the original for their language."  

 

So there ya go.  

 

There are Roman Catholics who have a similar insistence on using Latin only...  

 

There must be some part of our human psyche that is uniform among all peoples that leads toward this approach.  I don't know.  I'm not poking fun, either.  I think it is interesting.  

 

And I have learned a lot through this thread.  

[Bluegoat]

Or is it that Britain had an 'organic' church that was later taken over by the Catholic church?

 

I think that is a difficult argument to make.

 

Christianity clearly did not rise up independently there.  A common perspective is that it first came with Roman soldiers, but even if it was by some other route, it was not somehow separate.  Christianity was understood to have a universal nature, even if practices differed it was the same Church.  People understood the idea of being part of a hierarchical organizations where there was separation by distance from other parts of the organization.

 

British CHristianity developed its own distinct character over time and  I think its possible to make a strong argument that the replacing of that character with Roman practices was a poor and unnecessary thing. However, the British Christians themselves acknowledged the right of the Roman patriarch to make that call at the council of Whitby.

[Bluegoat]

Here's that other point:  "KJVO" is not unique in the world.  When Cyril and Methodius traveled to the Slavic countries as missionaries, they had to invent the Cyrillic alphabet in order to translate the scriptures into the local language.  That language is "Slavonic."  To this day, there are Orthodox Churches NOT in the Slavic lands, but right here in America which insist that the only legitimate language to use in the liturgy and in the scriptures is...Church Slavonic.  Which is NOT modern Russian...it's like learning middle English (or about like that--I'm not an expert).  I guess because it is "the original for their language."  

 

So there ya go.  

 

There are Roman Catholics who have a similar insistence on using Latin only...  

 

There must be some part of our human psyche that is uniform among all peoples that leads toward this approach.  I don't know.  I'm not poking fun, either.  I think it is interesting.  

 

And I have learned a lot through this thread.  

I once, rather weirdly, had an argument with a Prayer Book Anglican who thought that catholic liturgy should be in Latin and Orthodox in church slavonic.  He didn't seem to see it as contradicting some of the principles of the BCP. 

 

People are indeed strange.

[Guest]

I once, rather weirdly, had an argument with a Prayer Book Anglican who thought that catholic liturgy should be in Latin and Orthodox in church slavonic.  He didn't seem to see it as contradicting some of the principles of the BCP. 

 

People are indeed strange.

 

Well, in that case, should not the Anglican Prayer Book be in some older form of English?  

 

ETA:  Well, at any rate, we could stlil have fun with the you/thee set of arguments.  LOL

 

(Dang it.  I used to TEACH the class on Development of the English Language, but now I can't remember what kind was used when.  I've forgotten more than I'll ever know at this point.)

[mommaduck]

I once, rather weirdly, had an argument with a Prayer Book Anglican who thought that catholic liturgy should be in Latin and Orthodox in church slavonic. He didn't seem to see it as contradicting some of the principles of the BCP.

 

People are indeed strange.

Yes, the Greeks would object ;)

[Pam in CT]

--Now, son, who's that?

--Saint Michael.

--Who's that?

--Saint Michael!

--And what did he do?

--He cast Satan out of Paradise.

--Good boy!

Thanks, VC.  Some of us interested lurkers could really use Genius Annotations on this thread...   :lol:

[Bluegoat]

Well, in that case, should not the Anglican Prayer Book be in some older form of English?  

 

ETA:  Well, at any rate, we could stlil have fun with the you/thee set of arguments.  LOL

 

(Dang it.  I used to TEACH the class on Development of the English Language, but now I can't remember what kind was used when.  I've forgotten more than I'll ever know at this point.)

 

Well, I think this is where the confusion comes in.  The modern American BCP is a bit of an anomaly.  Generally they have been in Cranmer's English, slightly updated over time (except in the UK) to make it more understandable. So its a sort of high sounding English, and even was at the time it was written.  So - vernacular in the sense of understood by the people, but not in the sense of everyday speech.  So, in his view, it is in an older form of English.

 

But being understandable by the community in liturgical use was one of the principles of the creation of the prayer book in the first place.

 

But, I am sorry to say as I am myself a Prayer Book Anglican, that some people are more antiquarians than anything else, or reactionaries against certain modern liturgical trends. 

 

[Teannika]

The common people didn't have the manuscripts, because most of the common people could not read and there manuscripts would have been sold due to their value and eventually lost to all. Seriously, are you THAT ignorant of history and society?? The Catholic Church's issue was NOT the vernacular, it was too prevent just anyone from randomly "translating" and possibly inserting their own heresies or doing it poorly. These manuscripts were not, nor ever, a free for all (which would have destroyed them). Could you imagine if the manuscripts today were simply placed out on common tables and everyone was told, "here they are! Come and get them!" Do you know what would happen to them? They would be gone and never to be seen again. They would crumble to nothing. Yes, God bless those that would protect such things!

 

Will I claim that the RCC is perfect? Of course not! We're there some people in it that did wrong? Absolutely! Just as there were Anabaptists that took over an entire city, murdering people and polygamous (Munster and a springboard for Menno's very different views) and there were certain Waldensian groups that separated husbands and wives. However, I will not claim that the RCC is Evil, the Whore of Babylon, the Anti-Christ, the holder of Satan's Sun Wafers, or some such craziness; I was raised on that garbage and a bit of maturity and learning actual history beyond what barely educated, fundamentalist preachers regurgitated of sensationalist authors and a cartoon drawing fanatic changed everything. Yes, I went to all the seminars, speeches, and read the books (Hunt, White, and Riplinger amongst them). You dig more and more and further back and you find just how messed up their scholarship is.

 

Erasmus, yes, had issues with one of the manuscripts. It's still listed as a source he used, not completely rejected in whole. A bit of googling outside of fundamentalist websites and you can find this information.

 

 

 

Wait a minute. So what do you do with the manuscripts that were translated into the local languages? What is your take?

[mommaduck]

Orthodoxwiki

 

St. Patrick

 

Saint Patrick was born around 390 (likely in 387), at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Scotland. His name is from the Latin Patricius, meaning high-born. His parents were part of the Christian minority of Britain; his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon, "the son of Potitus, a priest, of the village Bannavem Taburniæ."

At the age of 16, he was captured during a raiding party and taken to Ireland as a slave to herd and tend sheep. During that time, he prayed frequently and came for the first time to have a true faith in God. At age 22, he had a vision in which God told him to be prepared to leave Ireland. Soon, he escaped, walking 200 miles to a ship and returning to England. In a dream, he saw the people of Ireland calling him, "We beg you, holy youth, that you shall come and shall walk again among us."

St Patrick sought clerical training. He was ordained by St. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre. Around 430 he was ordained a bishop, after which he returned to Ireland. There, he preached the Gospel, reaching tribal chieftains, gaining their permission to teach their subjects also. During his episcopate, he was attacked for a sin he confessed to a close friend, a sin he committed "in a single hour" when only 15, but he did not suffer as a result. He established an episcopal administration and led a monastic lifestyle, establishing Christianity in Ireland. St. Patrick died at Saul, Downpatrick, Ireland, on March 17, 461.

St. Germanus

 

Germanus was born of prominent Romano-Gaulish parents, Rusticus and Germanilla, in Autissiodurum (Auxerre), Gaul, during the later part of the fourth century, c. 380. He received his early education in the schools of Arles and Lyons. Germanus continued his education in Rome, studying rhetoric and civil law. He practiced law in Rome before the tribunal of the prefect for some years with great success and came into contact with the court. He married Eustachia....

 

After ordaining him a deacon, Bp. Amator told Germanus to live as one destined to succeed him as bishop. Taking the whole incident as an action of the Holy Spirit, Germanus changed his life completely and as an ascetic he devoted himself to prayer, study, and charity.

After the reposed of Bp. Amator on May 1, 418, Germanus was unanimously elected and consecrated bishop of Auxerre on July 7, 418....

 

The dispute concerning the need for divine grace, that was started by Pelagius in Rome in 405, was taken up by his disciples in the British Isles. The son, Agricola, of the British Bishop Severinus, took up the heresy and began spreading it throughout the island. To fight the heresy, Pope Celestine I commissioned Bp. Germanus in 429 to go to Britain with a party of clergy, including Bp. Lupus of Troyes, to defend the faith and oppose the false doctrine of the heretics.

St. Celestine

 

Saint Celestine, a zealous champion of Orthodoxy, lived during the reign of the holy Emperor Theodosius the Younger (408-450). He received an excellent education, and he was known for his extensive knowledge of the Holy Scripture and his theological ponderings.

The virtuous life of the saint and his authority as a theologian won him the general esteem and love of the clergy and people. After the death of St Boniface I, St Celestine was chosen to be the Bishop of Rome.

Definitely some organization going on there. (And yes, I'm pretty certain I could follow that back to the Apostles) Edited November 20, 2015 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

Wait a minute. So what do you do with the manuscripts that were translated into the local languages? What is your take?

Which ones, where, and what dates are you speaking of?

[mommaduck]

I had to go look something up, because I had remembered from other discussions and readings that Wycliffs translations into the vernacular were not the main issue with the Church.

 

He attacked:

1) Clerical wealth (in fact, he was against clergy owning ANY temporal possessions. So if your pastor owns a wedding ring, a nice watch, some suits, a house, a decent car...yeah, Wycliffe was against that. If it were only extreme wealth, then I would agree with him. Often, most clerics lived in Church owned property and such was not an issue).

2) Authority of the Church

3) Transubstantiation (his view was closer to what the Lutherans came to hold). On top of denying Transubstantiation, he placed more emphasis on preaching and Scripture than he did on the Sacraments. All of these are of import, but he basically dismissed one set in lew of the others.

 

However, the doctrine of Justification by Faith (alone) was not something that Wycliffe held to.

 

So, basically, Wycliff was teaching heresy as far at the Catholic Church was concerned. There would be understandable concerns over his preaching, his writings, and concern about him corrupting a translation. They did not want him teaching heresy to Catholics. He would equally be considered a heretic by Baptists of the most fundamentalist types (in fact, by all Baptists).

Edited November 20, 2015 by mommaduck

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Which part exactly are you referring to/do not believe?

Please forgive me if I come across as uncharitable toward your beliefs. My goal is for dialogue and mutual understanding. I have difficulty with the majority of what is stated and unstated in the article you shared. At face value, there appears to be a total lack of awareness or at least acknowledgement of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church both of which share apostolic roots and were in the beginning one Church along with what later became the Roman Catholic Church. These Christians have very clear lineages and recorded histories from the time of Pentecost through today and comprise a large chunk of Christianity worldwide and yet the link you provided makes zero mention of them. These are the very same Christians experiencing large scale persecutions at this time. The Christians you read about in the newspaper getting their heads chopped off and being raped and enslaved by ISIL/ISIS/Daesh are the very same Christians that are being discounted in this revisionist version of history that you are putting forward. Syria, where the Apostle Paul himself was baptized, is home to one of the oldest Christian centers on earth. There has been a continuous, unbroken succession of Christianity for nearly 2000 years throughout the Middle East and Nile Delta region. It was never just the Catholics and the Protestants. I hope you had a chance to view the graphic that was posted earlier. It came from Newsweek Magazine over 20 years ago. It is worth studying. http://www.stmatthewbr.org/images/tree_of_church_history.jpg

Edited November 20, 2015 by 天下学校

[Zoo Keeper]

Just wanted to say that this has been a very interesting and informative thread.  I've learned many new ideas. 

 

Don't know what I think about it all yet, but thanks to all who have been willing to discuss their views.

 

 

 

(Now back to your regularly scheduled program...) ;)

[Teannika]

Which ones, where, and what dates are you speaking of?

 

Sorry, yesterday I was interrupted when I typed my comment and couldn't get back here.

 

I'm not sure that I even need to list manuscripts for the time being. The argument that your side is putting forth is that "the church" kept the manuscripts locked up and protected. However this is strange to me, as somehow they could not produce a completed unchanged text! If they had protected them so well, where is this text? Where is the agreement? Why do the two main manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaticus) disagree so much? Why are they missing great portions including whole books?

 

Vaticanus omits 46 chapters of Genesis, 32 chapters of Psalms, the books from 1 Timothy through to Titus, all of Revelation and so on.

 

So where did the 5000 odd manuscripts and fragments come from that were remaining in agreement? The ones found in various languages, with the 2600 extra words that we still have in our King James Bibles?

 

I can't see how anyone can argue that "the church" (referring to a controlling body that becomes the Catholic Church) kept the true uncorrupted manuscripts, when after all of the book burning and bible burning we still end up with enough evidence for a bible that is in agreement with remaining manuscript proof for the support of its text.

[Teannika]

God did not write them. God did not dictate them. They were written by men that were inspired by God and their faith. Some were written by men recording histories at the behest of other men they are accredited to and were inspired by God and their faith.

 

And this is where our foundations are so very different, and this is why we will not come into agreement on the true text of the bible. I believe that the holy scriptures were originally inspired by God in the sense that God wrote through the men, penning the exact words he wanted us to have still today. Even if it was unbeknown to them at the time that they wrote.

 

God spoke through these men to give us a 'sure word of prophecy'. If the men had written it without the Holy Ghost guiding them, then the prophecy in our bibles would not be guaranteed as they may have made mistakes. Future events were unknown to them and kept hidden, so they could not possibly edit into the text great prophetic truths that would be hidden through typology and so forth.

[Guest]

Without addressing any comments made in the past day or so, I would like to add something I have been thinking about.  

 

It is my opinion that an educated English speaker will at some point have read at least the story-telling books of the OT, the Psalms and Proverbs and all of the New Testament in the KJV.  The language is rich and beautiful, and for many years, the KJV was the version of the Bible that most people read.  That means it is reflected in English-speaking literature, and it is a great richness to be able to understand references when one is reading other literature.  It also is a means of forming a rich vocabulary and learning diverse ways of expressing oneself.  

 

In addition, it is easier to memorize beautiful language.  (Yes, I have read the studies but I'm not going to cite them here because I am lazy.)

 

While it is of benefit to have the Bible in language that people can understand (NIV, The Message and so on), there was also a unifying of the culture and understanding when most people read the same version.  I still recite the The Lord is my shepherd... in the KJV because that is how I learned it from my grandmother (who was born in 1885).  It united us through time.  

 

I'm not opposed to the KJV; I do not think that the cited foundational documents prove it to be the "only" version that is inspired or well translated.  But I don't want that statement to be misinterpreted as "dissing" the KJV.  I'm not.  

 

 

[mommaduck]

Sorry, yesterday I was interrupted when I typed my comment and couldn't get back here.

 

I'm not sure that I even need to list manuscripts for the time being. The argument that your side is putting forth is that "the church" kept the manuscripts locked up and protected. However this is strange to me, as somehow they could not produce a completed unchanged text! If they had protected them so well, where is this text? Where is the agreement? Why do the two main manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaticus) disagree so much? Why are they missing great portions including whole books?

 

Vaticanus omits 46 chapters of Genesis, 32 chapters of Psalms, the books from 1 Timothy through to Titus, all of Revelation and so on.

 

So where did the 5000 odd manuscripts and fragments come from that were remaining in agreement? The ones found in various languages, with the 2600 extra words that we still have in our King James Bibles?

 

I can't see how anyone can argue that "the church" (referring to a controlling body that becomes the Catholic Church) kept the true uncorrupted manuscripts, when after all of the book burning and bible burning we still end up with enough evidence for a bible that is in agreement with remaining manuscript proof for the support of its text.

I never made any claims about the completeness of a manuscript, etc. Manuscripts have been found over time. You specifically asked why a particular manuscript was keep locked away. I answered it. It was in care of the Vatican and they locked it away to preserve it. The end. I don't know of any ancient manuscript existing today that is exactly and completely what we have in our homes. NONE. If you know if such, then please list it and where it is being kept.