Hermeneutics compiled the Bible? Need Help to Answer a Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter CEAbbott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CEAbbott

Guest
**Hello again dear friends on CAF.

As some of you may already know, I have a “friend” that is a Baptist and who debates me about my Catholic faith on Facebook. I have started two other threads with regards to her accusations and have taken many good apologetic sources from my threads to answer her accusations. I took the advice of one CAF member and turned the tables, asking her where we got the Bible from in the first place. This is what she answered.

**"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

**Now to be honest, I have no idea what she is saying here. I never heard of Hermeneutics, and what has that to do with the Bible being a Catholic book which we all know is a fact. I need your help in answering her on this one because I’m stumped with this response. I have no idea what she’s getting at. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help me out with this one.
God bless you all.
please find me on FB by the name Cindy Quinto. Maybe you can help me directly with this debate. **
 
Your friend is funny.

The truth is the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. No one else than the Catholic Church. Did your friend notice that the Canon of the New Testament that he reads was first determined by the “Constantine originated” Roman Catholic Church. The Canon wasn’t determined until the later 4th and early 5th centuries (Synod of Rome and Councils of Carthage and Hippo - All “Roman Catholic Establishments”).

How did the Catholic Church determine which books were Canonical (She had to sort through 110 books that were considered by various groups as Scriptural)? She used the books that most agreed with Catholic teaching! In other words, the Catholic Church chose the books of the New Testament that most supported what the Catholic Church had been teaching for almost 4 centuries.

For those who question “Constantine-Originated”, please see our good CEAbbots others threads. Her Baptist minister friend made this claim.
 
CEAbbott said:
**Hello again dear friends on CAF.

As some of you may already know, I have a “friend” that is a Baptist and who debates me about my Catholic faith on Facebook. I have started two other threads with regards to her accusations and have taken many good apologetic sources from my threads to answer her accusations. I took the advice of one CAF member and turned the tables, asking her where we got the Bible from in the first place. This is what she answered.

**"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

**Now to be honest, I have no idea what she is saying here. I never heard of Hermeneutics, and what has that to do with the Bible being a Catholic book which we all know is a fact. I need your help in answering her on this one because I’m stumped with this response. I have no idea what she’s getting at. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help me out with this one.
God bless you all.
please find me on FB by the name Cindy Quinto. Maybe you can help me directly with this debate. **
Click to expand...
Cindy, others more able than I will explain hermeneutics, but your friend is using it as a smokescreen to try to hide that fact that she has no support for her acceptance of “sola scriptura”. What she is actually doing - though she probably hasn’t thought it through to realize it - is that she is placing hermeneutics as the equal of divine inspiration of the Sacred Texts, and she is using it in place of Sacred Tradition because she can’t bear the thought that the Catholic Church had any authority to select which texts reflected the doctrine received from the Apostles. It seems you are dealing with two falsehoods that your friend has embraced: Sola Scriptura and King James text-only.
 
FCEGM said:
Cindy, others more able than I will explain hermeneutics, but your friend is using it as a smokescreen to try to hide that fact that she has no support for her acceptance of “sola scriptura”. What she is actually doing - though she probably hasn’t thought it through to realize it - is that she is placing hermeneutics as the equal of divine inspiration of the Sacred Texts, and she is using it in place of Sacred Tradition because she can’t bear the thought that the Catholic Church had any authority to select which texts reflected the doctrine received from the Apostles. It seems you are dealing with two falsehoods that your friend has embraced: Sola Scriptura and King James text-only.
Click to expand...
I always laugh that the same people who deride the Catholic claim of Papal Infallibility also claim to have infallible hermeneutics. In truth, they don’t claim infallibility in hermeneutics but they never admit that they are wrong; its always the Catholic Church who is wrong in Scriptural interpretation.
 
40.png
CEAbbott:
"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

“Hermeneutics” is nothing more than the interpretation of a passage based on relevant evidence. What constitutes “relevant evidence” depends upon your point of view - which means that it can only be a help for us in discerning the meaning of difficult passages; it cannot be considered an infallible methodology.

For a simple (and humorous) example of how it works, check out "Hermeneutics in Everyday Life" in which we exegete a stop sign from the points of view of a variety of different religious traditions. 😃
 
It sounds like she’s trying to dazzle you with big words, but she is actually saying that the bible was slowly developed over the years, by people studying it and interpreting it independently. She claims it was about the 1600’s that this finally came to fruition and now we have our Bibles.

Of course, anyone with a remote understanding of church history knows this is false, and there is a plethora of historical resources to refute her wishful claims. The books that are included in the unabridged Bibles were determined by the original Church; the Catholic Church, and that is a matter of historical fact.
 
CEAbbott said:
…
Click to expand...
"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

Were these “Godly men” protected from error? If so why and how?

What does she think of the Vulgate? That came out in like the 400s or something like that.

What did people follow before they had the wonderful infallible KJV? Did they read the gospel of Thomas or Acts of Pilate? Was Revelation inspired?

Basically this lady is short 1600 years or so with no teaching authority…did King James have a teaching authority?

These questions should give you enough to go on…👍
 
CEAbbott said:
… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts)** **
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it your friend who made the claim, “Scripture interprets itself”? This is what he is getting at with this “Theory of Hermeneutics”, which is actually quite comical. As mentioned previously, this “Theory of Hermeneutics” has produced hundreds, if not thousands, of churches who all use the Bible to get their own unique teachings.
 
CEAbbott said:
**Hello again dear friends on CAF.

As some of you may already know, I have a “friend” that is a Baptist and who debates me about my Catholic faith on Facebook. I have started two other threads with regards to her accusations and have taken many good apologetic sources from my threads to answer her accusations. I took the advice of one CAF member and turned the tables, asking her where we got the Bible from in the first place. This is what she answered.

**"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

**Now to be honest, I have no idea what she is saying here. I never heard of Hermeneutics, and what has that to do with the Bible being a Catholic book which we all know is a fact. I need your help in answering her on this one because I’m stumped with this response. I have no idea what she’s getting at. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help me out with this one.
God bless you all.
please find me on FB by the name Cindy Quinto. Maybe you can help me directly with this debate. **
Click to expand...
Cindy,

King James Only types believe, in extreme cases, that the KJV is superior to the Greek or other original languages. As the “Pope” for the KJV folks Peter Ruckman…who has a church not far from my home…has stated “where the KJV differs from the originals, the Originals are wrong.” Found in a letter published by James White in his book debunking the KJV only types.

Hermeneutics is the “science of Interpretation”, to make the scriptures clear. This is taught in protestant, especially baptist, seminaries. Teaches new pastors how to interprete the scriptures and is based upon the seminary, which translation, resources and theologians to use.

Now ask her this. If the KJV is the most acurate, why did the 1611 not state that, but in fact stated in short it was a rush job of translation in the preface to the reader? The KJV was re-written many times. The version most use today is the 1769. Not the 1611. KJV scholars by 1763 in the Critical Review began noticing errors in the 1611. By 1884, theologians and bible scholars such as Scrivener began calling for an update due to the faulty translation. If her version does not have the warning the translators included in the preface, she does not have a 1611 edition, and thereby not a true KJV…in some peoples minds.

Hugh Broughton, a comtemporary in 1604, called it an abominable translation as it used the Textus Receptus as interpreted by Beza instead of the 1550 (?) translated by Stephnus. comtenporary scholars thought Beza’s work was inferior.

King James limited the sources the translators could use in the work to what I’ve listed above and to only certain “approved” bibles such as the Tyndale, Covendale, Matthew’s, The Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. All of these bibles are seldom used due to what later bible scholars have called errors. Such as incorrectly translating parts of Ruth in the masculine pronouns instead of feminine. Also used in the KJV was the Douay-Rhiems translation. They rejected any copies of scripture from Alexandria as to them, Alexandria was rife with heresy. The Constantinople copies were thought superior even though that city was a hotbed of the Arian heresy.

Ask her how is it a translation is infallible and all those “Godly men” are infallible? Where in the scriptures does it say that and if she excepts that men can be infallible, what is her authority for such belief? As it is commonly known in biblical historical studies of translations, James I thought the earlier protestant translations encouraged disobedience to earthly Kings due to the marginal notes. He wanted a translation to counter this.

Probably the only book of James White’s I would recommend would be his work on the King James Only controversy. An easy read and it gives both sides to include personal letters from such guys as Ruckman.

Would be interested in seeing her responses. Has she ever answered any of the questions we have posed to her?

blessings

Mark
 
For those posting replies from Catholic sources, the people Cindy is dealing with will not accept them. To reach them, you must use protestant sources to open the door of their closed minds. Think of them as a cult and treat them as such. When I was a KJV only type, the Pope was the Anti Christ, Rome the whore of Bablyon etc etc etc. Catholics could not reach me, I got out due to those protestants who saw the error of KJV only who challenged me.

My 2 cents.

MArk
 
CEAbbott said:
**Hello again dear friends on CAF.

**"As to your question in regards to the origins of the “Holy Bible”. Have you ever heard of a theory called “Hermeneutics”? see? the original “epistles” or letters… or… “testimony’s”(if you will) given by the apostles… were originally in the ancient languages of Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. As the decades , then century’s passed, through the employment of the theory of Hermeneutics and then the later (1600’s era translations to manageable language), we have the KJV ,(which is the most accurate translation of theses original Gospel texts) given by a body of scholars specifically selected by King James, for the task of translation, because of their devotion and honesty. In short, theses were “Godly men”…

God bless you all.
please find me on FB by the name Cindy Quinto. Maybe you can help me directly with this debate.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to help you with how the Bible was compiled:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

Here is a link to the codex siniaticus…one of the early manuscripts of the NT, dating to the 4th century.

Here is something to ask your friend:

First, ask your friend to cite you the chapter and verse where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

She cannot, there is no such chapter and verse. The title and table of contents were only placed there by the publisher, so these do not count. Remember, stress the chapter and verse.

If she cannot, then how did those using hermeneutics come to the conclusion as to the authorship of the Gospel of Mark? And how would they know who this St Mark is, did they get the right Mark, and not just anybody named Mark? If hermeneutics was used to compile the bible?

Mark the evangelist was a disciple of Peter, and wrote his gospel because the Roman christians asked him to do so, to write what Peter taught.
 
CEAbbott,
Many KJV only Christians have heard the objections listed above and, simply put, are too stubborn to admit the original New Testament was compiled by the Catholic Church. It is historical fact. Non-Catholic Christians must acknolwdege that the RCC faithfully and conscientiously copied and preserved the Scriptures for centuries. However, the councils charges with compiling the New Testament did not simply look at epistles and gospels that supported church teaching, there were criteria. I haven’t done an in depth study, but here are the basics as I understand them.
  1. Was the book ancient, could it be traced back to the first century. Many “gospels” were written in the second and even third centuries.
  2. Who wrote the book. Was the author close to Jesus’ ministry (brothers James and Jude)an Apostle, or a ministry partner of an Apostle, such as Luke, mentioned in Collosians 4:14 and 2Tim. 4:11
  3. Was the book widely used for a long time. So the gospel of Joe, used by a single congregation in southern Egypt stood little chance of being accepted.
  4. Was the book doctrinally sound and agreed with both the Old Testament and other books of the New Testament.
    Personally, I believe that God directs the lives of everyone, Christian and non-Christian, who ever lived or will ever live. I believe the Scriptures contain the information that God wanted written down, and I beleive God guided the men who compiled the New Testament and the people who spread it and preserved it over two millenia. I believe multiple versions of the Bible are a good thing. I read the KJV for the beauty of its language, the 23 Psalms just doesn’t sound right if its not from the KJV. For study I like the NIV or CEV (Contemporary English Version) because they are easier to understand. Frankly, I don’t know how I would teach a kids Sunday School with the KJV. Tell your friend this is one argument they should give up on. Everyone enjoy your “post rapture week.”
 
stevekehl said:
CEAbbott,
Many KJV only Christians have heard the objections listed above and, simply put, are too stubborn to admit the original New Testament was compiled by the Catholic Church. It is historical fact. Non-Catholic Christians must acknolwdege that the RCC faithfully and conscientiously copied and preserved the Scriptures for centuries. However, the councils charges with compiling the New Testament did not simply look at epistles and gospels that supported church teaching, there were criteria. I haven’t done an in depth study, but here are the basics as I understand them.
  1. Was the book ancient, could it be traced back to the first century. Many “gospels” were written in the second and even third centuries.
  2. Who wrote the book. Was the author close to Jesus’ ministry (brothers James and Jude)an Apostle, or a ministry partner of an Apostle, such as Luke, mentioned in Collosians 4:14 and 2Tim. 4:11
  3. Was the book widely used for a long time. So the gospel of Joe, used by a single congregation in southern Egypt stood little chance of being accepted.
  4. Was the book doctrinally sound and agreed with both the Old Testament and other books of the New Testament.
    Personally, I believe that God directs the lives of everyone, Christian and non-Christian, who ever lived or will ever live. I believe the Scriptures contain the information that God wanted written down, and I beleive God guided the men who compiled the New Testament and the people who spread it and preserved it over two millenia. I believe multiple versions of the Bible are a good thing. I read the KJV for the beauty of its language, the 23 Psalms just doesn’t sound right if its not from the KJV. For study I like the NIV or CEV (Contemporary English Version) because they are easier to understand. Frankly, I don’t know how I would teach a kids Sunday School with the KJV. Tell your friend this is one argument they should give up on. Everyone enjoy your “post rapture week.”
Click to expand...
Very well done, Steve!

The story of the canon of the New Testament is rather interesting. Revelation, for example, was quickly accepted by the eastern Church, and denied by the 2nd and 3rd century western Church. Hebrews, had the opposite affect; quick acceptance by the West and only later acceptance by the East. The Shepherd of Hermas had a wide audience in the entire Church but lost its favor in the 3rd or early 4th. The Letter of Clement to Corinth was read in the region of Corinth as Scripture for 100 years, according to the Bishop of Corinth (circa 200AD). The Didache and the ProtoEvangelium of James were two books that had a wide acceptance throughout the Church.

The 4 books (Shepherd, Clement, James, and Didache), although ultimately rejected as Scripture, were still accepted as great teaching aids throughout the Church. Just as the 7 Epistles of Ignatius (circa 110AD) and the writings of St. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
 
MarkBrown said:
Cindy,

King James Only types believe, in extreme cases, that the KJV is superior to the Greek or other original languages. As the “Pope” for the KJV folks Peter Ruckman…who has a church not far from my home…has stated “where the KJV differs from the originals, the Originals are wrong.” Found in a letter published by James White in his book debunking the KJV only types.

Hermeneutics is the “science of Interpretation”, to make the scriptures clear. This is taught in protestant, especially baptist, seminaries. Teaches new pastors how to interprete the scriptures and is based upon the seminary, which translation, resources and theologians to use.

Now ask her this. If the KJV is the most acurate, why did the 1611 not state that, but in fact stated in short it was a rush job of translation in the preface to the reader? The KJV was re-written many times. The version most use today is the 1769. Not the 1611. KJV scholars by 1763 in the Critical Review began noticing errors in the 1611. By 1884, theologians and bible scholars such as Scrivener began calling for an update due to the faulty translation. If her version does not have the warning the translators included in the preface, she does not have a 1611 edition, and thereby not a true KJV…in some peoples minds.

Hugh Broughton, a comtemporary in 1604, called it an abominable translation as it used the Textus Receptus as interpreted by Beza instead of the 1550 (?) translated by Stephnus. comtenporary scholars thought Beza’s work was inferior.

King James limited the sources the translators could use in the work to what I’ve listed above and to only certain “approved” bibles such as the Tyndale, Covendale, Matthew’s, The Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. All of these bibles are seldom used due to what later bible scholars have called errors. Such as incorrectly translating parts of Ruth in the masculine pronouns instead of feminine. Also used in the KJV was the Douay-Rhiems translation. They rejected any copies of scripture from Alexandria as to them, Alexandria was rife with heresy. The Constantinople copies were thought superior even though that city was a hotbed of the Arian heresy.

Ask her how is it a translation is infallible and all those “Godly men” are infallible? Where in the scriptures does it say that and if she excepts that men can be infallible, what is her authority for such belief? As it is commonly known in biblical historical studies of translations, James I thought the earlier protestant translations encouraged disobedience to earthly Kings due to the marginal notes. He wanted a translation to counter this.

Probably the only book of James White’s I would recommend would be his work on the King James Only controversy. An easy read and it gives both sides to include personal letters from such guys as Ruckman.

Would be interested in seeing her responses. Has she ever answered any of the questions we have posed to her?

blessings

Mark
Click to expand...
Hi Mark,
Thanks for all that. I think I’ll just copy and paste it as a response to her. But I’m becoming quite weary of her now. I did write her last night one last response and told her that since she is now a new “christian” she would fall prey to all sorts of garbage taught to her by her newly found Baptistist faith and pastor. This is the nasty response I got back from her:

"Where in the bible does it say to baptize non-consenting children? You say you know scripture, yet you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee Nicodemus? Let me refer you to Jesus’ words when he said in John 3:5 "VE…RILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,That which is born of the FLESH…IS FLESH; and that which is BORN of the SPIRIT…IS spirit! MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!. Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST! We are Baptists because we choose, of our own free will and volition ,as ADULTS, to- #1. Confess our sinful nature,-#2. Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and- #3.Submit to the COMMAND of JESUS CHRIST to be BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION (Mark 16:16)> “He that believeth and is “Baptized” SHALL BE SAVED”!!!

***Apparently, my refuting the hermeneutics theory caused this “out of left field” jolt. I’m almost ready to “defriend” her. Thanks for all that information.
Cindy
***…
 
CEAbbott's "friend" said:
Where in the bible does it say to baptize non-consenting children?
Click to expand...
Where does it say not to? St. Peter tells us in Acts 2, “This promise is for you and for your children.” In other parts of the Book of Acts, we see that “whole households” are being baptized - including the children, we can assume. (They didn’t have birth control back then, or NFP, and it was not just Mom, Dad, and one or two kids; it was all the cousins and aunts and uncles, Grandpa and Grandma, too, and the servants and their children - most households had babies in them.)
You say you know scripture, yet you IGNORE scripture! What did Jesus tell the Pharisee Nicodemus? Let me refer you to Jesus’ words when he said in John 3:5 "VE…RILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN,
Click to expand...
This means that Baptism is required for salvation - another really good reason to baptize infants as soon as possible.
That which is born of the FLESH…IS FLESH; and that which is BORN of the SPIRIT…IS spirit! MARVEL NOT that that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE “BORN AGAIN”!
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍 =
Here, is where your “BAPTIST CHURCH” is formed.We “Born Again Baptists” can trace our roots and lineage right to Jesus and JOHN the BAPTIST!
Click to expand...
:whacky:

Uhhhh, no … :nope: the Baptist Church was started by a recovering alcoholic named John Smythe who originally was intending to start a Bible study for his fellow recovering alcoholics, as a means of creating a support network. Over a period of time, the members of the group began to reinterpret the meaning of Scripture (for example, saying that the “wine” was really only grape juice) and, being found to be heretical by their Anglican sponsors, set out to start a new religion of their own. They borrowed many of the tenets of the Mennonites, who seemed especially pious and temperate, to them. They got the idea of “believers’ only baptism” from the Mennonites; not from John the Baptist.

You are Baptists because your spiritual ancestors, in their zeal to avoid the temptations that lead to alcoholism, created a whole new religion centered around temperance, and borrowing the customs of the Mennonites to replace those of the Anglicans, which were thought to be “too worldly” and thus, too tempting. They may have been called “Baptists” in honour of John the Baptist, but John the Baptist never heard of y’all - nobody did, until after 1617 AD. In some parts of the world, they still never have heard of the Baptist sect.
 
You say she is a new Christian? Recently baptized? You might give her some space for now. Baptists are taught that they must share the gospel with everyone. They even teach classes on how to do it. She’s in the honeymoon phase of her faith, she doesn’t even know it well enough yet herself to engage with you rationally. Love her, pray for her, notice commonalities and try to share them, but now may not be the time to try to debate.
 
MarkBrown said:
Cindy,

King James Only types believe, in extreme cases, that the KJV is superior to the Greek or other original languages. As the “Pope” for the KJV folks Peter Ruckman…who has a church not far from my home…has stated “where the KJV differs from the originals, the Originals are wrong.” Found in a letter published by James White in his book debunking the KJV only types.

Hermeneutics is the “science of Interpretation”, to make the scriptures clear. This is taught in protestant, especially baptist, seminaries. Teaches new pastors how to interprete the scriptures and is based upon the seminary, which translation, resources and theologians to use.

Now ask her this. If the KJV is the most acurate, why did the 1611 not state that, but in fact stated in short it was a rush job of translation in the preface to the reader? The KJV was re-written many times. The version most use today is the 1769. Not the 1611. KJV scholars by 1763 in the Critical Review began noticing errors in the 1611. By 1884, theologians and bible scholars such as Scrivener began calling for an update due to the faulty translation. If her version does not have the warning the translators included in the preface, she does not have a 1611 edition, and thereby not a true KJV…in some peoples minds.

Hugh Broughton, a comtemporary in 1604, called it an abominable translation as it used the Textus Receptus as interpreted by Beza instead of the 1550 (?) translated by Stephnus. comtenporary scholars thought Beza’s work was inferior.

King James limited the sources the translators could use in the work to what I’ve listed above and to only certain “approved” bibles such as the Tyndale, Covendale, Matthew’s, The Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. All of these bibles are seldom used due to what later bible scholars have called errors. Such as incorrectly translating parts of Ruth in the masculine pronouns instead of feminine. Also used in the KJV was the Douay-Rhiems translation. They rejected any copies of scripture from Alexandria as to them, Alexandria was rife with heresy. The Constantinople copies were thought superior even though that city was a hotbed of the Arian heresy.

Ask her how is it a translation is infallible and all those “Godly men” are infallible? Where in the scriptures does it say that and if she excepts that men can be infallible, what is her authority for such belief? As it is commonly known in biblical historical studies of translations, James I thought the earlier protestant translations encouraged disobedience to earthly Kings due to the marginal notes. He wanted a translation to counter this.

Probably the only book of James White’s I would recommend would be his work on the King James Only controversy. An easy read and it gives both sides to include personal letters from such guys as Ruckman.

Would be interested in seeing her responses. Has she ever answered any of the questions we have posed to her?

blessings

Mark
Click to expand...
***Hi Mark,

Thanks again for all that wonderful information! As regards to her answering any of the answers I took from you guys and posted to my FB page, well, the threads I have started on this forum in have shown her remarks in “red” - is the answers I am getting back from her. So to answer your question, – not really. She keeps turning the tables as I expected. Like I said, I’m almost ready to “defriend” her. However, I’ve made FaceBook friends with about five good Catholics from this forum and now they are helping directly with refuting her on my FB account. If you have a Facebook account, I would love to “friend” you. I’m “Cindy Quinto” on FaceBook and welcome all Catholics to my FB page.
God bless you!
Cindy***
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top