Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It seems to that the questions are insincere, because of the amount of errors in the statements,

e.g.



There are six books in the Tyndale Old Testament, and it would be very unusal to have a copy of a Tyndale Bible, because only a few copies are known to exist, other than having a book which prints multiple versions parallel to each other (also unusual).

If these types of things are stated at point 1., how much less should other points be considered to be answered. There are numerous errors in the first numbered paragraph that would need to be resolved before going further.

I *have* copies of the Tyndale Old and New Testaments. If *you* think I am lying, that is your mistake, not mine. Don't judge me based on your opinion without facts. It makes you sound biased and also makes me dicount your opinion on anything to do with this subject.

One is a small book, black hard cover (about 6x8 maybe) and the other is red hard cover that is larger (maybe 10x14). I am trying to go from memory as I am in Chicago and bookshelves are in Missouri.

Also, if I remember right, there is a preface about the life of Tyndale. There is a divider where his finished translation stops. The rest (I believe) is based on his notes and possibly works that he was using to translate. There are also no chapters and verses, only books and it is printed without indentations etc. (ie wall of text)

I will take pictures of them when I get home and link them if you want.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by rbratt

1) William Tyndale produced the copy that the KJV of the Bible was created from. And King James basically prosecuted him as a heretic and then "authorized" this version. I have a Tyndale Old and New Testament. What is wrong with these? Also my KJV (I have several) mostly have WT on the pages between the Old and New Testament in "remembrance" of Tyndale.

William Tyndale was a scholar of the first rank, fluent in several languages, a martyr, and a mighty man of valour. His work of Bible translation was probably the most significant of all other English translations prior to 1611. Perhaps Tyndale's work was the most influential and inspirational to all other Bible translators of the Reformation era. Having said all that, it must be understood when evaluating Protestant Reformation translations that many of these men did their work under great stress, suffering, and sacrifice. It was illegal to translate the scriptures in those days. The Spanish Inquisition was in full swing in those days. And the hellish Roman Catholic church caused many great men of God, such as Tyndale, to do much of their work in hiding and on the run. Many times their work was interrupted as they continually had to flee from town to town to escape the pursuit of the murderous Catholic inquisitors. So whatever flaws that can be found upon their noble work must be understood as honest mistakes due much to the lack of the convenient circumstances that any Bible translator desires. These men did not enjoy the luxury of the King's protection as the KJV translators did, which allowed them the privelege of doing their work with full support and aid of all the learned men of Europe as well as the access of any manuscript evidence they wished to collate and consult.

Having said all that, here are a few things wrong with some editions of Tyndale's Bible:

Mat. 5:22 "without a cause" is omitted
Mat. 11:26 "in thy sight" is omitted
Luke 4:5 "of time" is omitted
Luke 13:35 "verily" is omitted
Acts 11:28 "Caesar" is omitted
Rom. 10:9 says "That if thou shalt confess that Jesus is the Lord" instead of "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus"
Heb. 12:23 "church" is omitted

There are other problems in the Tyndales Bible. But this small sampling is provided to show why the KJV was necessary. You have to understand that Tyndale's Bible, like most all other TR-based English Bibles prior to 1611, were a work in progress and texts in transition. All of these men called for others to pick up where they left off. Tyndale did some of his work on his uncompleted OT from a pest-infested prison cell and in an extremely weak physical condition. Tyndale is not to be criticised for the above flaws. Rather he is to be applauded for his courageous efforts that became so instrumental in the making of the King James Bible.

The KJB is a finalized text and is the culmination of the TR texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, as well as the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and also all TR-based English Bibles such as Tyndales, and many other TR-based translations such as Luther's German Bible, the French Olivetan, the Italion Diodati, the Latin, Syriac, Spanish Bibles, and many others.

[bibleprotector]

It is certainly unusal for someone to have a Tyndale Bible, yet seem to know so little about it. What George and Manny have posted above are, I think, very helpful for anyone who wants to find real answers.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by rbratt

2) If the KJV of the Bible is the ONLY authorized (what does authorized mean anyway? Didn't God authorize hundreds of men to write his Word?) version of the Bible, how can anyone outside English speaking countries be saved? A German translation will read differently than an English one due to language differences. wouldn't that make it an non-authorized translation?

Some of my good brethren may disagree with me on this, but it won't be the first time they've been wrong and I forgive them. I have ministered to non-English speaking people for several years and am currently on deputation to go to Puerto Rico as a Missionary. As such, I study the situation of foreign language translations very closely. I am fascinated with this subject. I have extensively looked into the situation of the Spanish Bible in particular. I believe that any language group can have a Bible equivalent to the KJV. For example, the Spanish-speaking world has the Reina Valera Gomez Bible (aka RVG). This Spanish Bible is in total conformity to the same underlying text of the KJV (the Received Texts) and is therefore equivalent to the KJV. Other Reina Valera editions deviate from the Received Texts and incorporate the Critical Texts based on the Alexandrian manuscripts. The RVG is the only Spanish Bible that has totally eliminated the Critical Text variants and has been collated word-for-word with the KJV and the Received Texts. Therefore, this is the Spanish Bible I use and recommend.

Are there language differences between the RVG and the KJV? Absolutely. Any student of languages understands that there are some things that cannot translate exactly word-for-word from one language to another. But does this mean that a foreign translation cannot be equivalent to the KJV. Absolutely not. What people fail to realize about word-for-word translating (aka Formal Equivalence and Verbal Plenary Translating), which was the method employed by the KJV translators, is that word-for-word translating is not a demand for an exact verbal equivalent in EVERY instance. It is a demand for an exact verbal equivalent WHEREVER ONE IS POSSIBLE. Wherever an exact verbal equivalent is not possible, the translator’s job is to seek God’s direction in choosing a word or words that is the closest and the most accurate representation of the word or words in the source language. However, such are exceptions that only prove the rule because the vast majority of words in one language WILL have a verbal equivalent in another. Yes, the syntax of the language will ultimately determine the end result of the translation. But so long as the inspired, preserved, infallible words of God have been accurately translated either with an exact verbal equivalent or a close representative (wherever verbal equivalents were not available), the translation is still just as much the word of God as the KJV.

In other words, I believe that if a foreign translation is based upon the same foundation of the KJV (the Received Texts), and is a verbally equivalent translation barring syntax issues, that foreign translation is just as much the word of God as the KJV.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by rbratt

I *have* copies of the Tyndale Old and New Testaments.

Since Tyndale did not translate even a fourth of the Old Testament, you can understand the suspicions about your motives.

Many of your statements are simply incorrect. It is unusual for someone sincerely seeking the truth about Bible versions to start by arguing from several false premises. You have done more than ask questions; you have presented arguments based on false premises. You have also began from a very defensive position (evidenced by expecting people to call you a "devil," etc.), suggesting that you are here to rationalize your beliefs, not to earnestly seek the truth.

You have been given some very good advice on how to approach the matter. I will give mine:

1. Pray for guidance.
2. Get, and read: Crowned With Glory, Which Version is the Bible?

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by rbratt

3) Just as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write in different styles and tell the same stories, they are not identicle in content or literary content. They have different perspectives and ways of putting them into words. (Maybe God knows not all people understand the same way?) Why then should we throw out a translation, that is done in good faith, and does not take away from the message of salvation. That is the purpose of Gods Word after all. Right? Personally I have gathered much more insight using several versions of the Bible to get a deeper meaning for what God was actually saying. Should I not use a concordenence, or Josephus, or any of the apologetics to help my understanding? What about commentaries? They aren't scripture.

4) In saying that everyone else's versions are wrong, and only the KJV is the "true inspired Word of God" aren't you just like the saducees and pharisees (sorry I know I spelled them wrong) of old? More caught up in the words, and practice rather than the true spirt of God? (ie.. splitting symantic hairs?)

5) In saying not to change, or add to, or delete from "this book" you do realize that there was no Bible when John wrote Revelations? He was saying not to change the words of his prophecy, not the Bible. The Bible was put together by men, who selected what letters by the apostles should or shouldn't be added along with Old testament scriptures. Indeed they didn't include all of the Old Testament either. The Jewish scriptures contain more books. Why not include those? There are other letters that were written by the apostles that are not included that are just as valid. They just weren't included becasue they didn't add anything to the "message".

6) Didn't Paul (I think it was him) say all scripture is good for reproach and teaching? The NIV, the NASB and KJV all share the same message. Language changes. Look at our society today and tell me the language usage is the same as it was 50 years ago. BUT if you read the NIV do you get the message of salvation? Yes. So why so against saving souls arguing over whse Bible is the best?

I have already tried to answer your first two questions. I will try to answer the remaining 4 in this post in one response as I feel that questions 3-6 sort of overlap each other.

What you seem to be confused about is the difference between the word (singular) of God and the words (plural) of God. This distinction needs to be understood. Nowhere in the scriptures do you find that what God inspired and promised to preserve for us is "the message" of God's word. What God inspired were words. All scripture is given by inspiration of God - II Tim. 3:16. Scriptures are written words. Also, the pure words (Pro. 30:5-6, Ps. 12:6-7) of God are what he promised to preserve from generation to generation, not the message, thoughts, doctrines, or concepts behind the words.

Mt 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

We desperately need EVERY word of God even more than our necessary physical food (Job 23:12). Not just some of it, but ALL of it. This is why we as Bible-believers are so militant and knit-picky about the very words of God. If God saw fit to preserve every word that he inspired, even down to the jots and tittles (Mat. 5:18) than it only stands to reason that in order for a translation to be completely faithful, it must have EVERY word of God. We must not settle for a translation that has words omitted. We should desire the WHOLE Bible, not a Bible full of holes!

Pr 22:21 "That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"

Notice that God is concerned with us knowing the certainty of the words of truth. If we get the right words, all of them, we will get the right message rather than just man’s interpretation of what the message might be.

To further demonstrate where God emphasizes his words (plural), the following is a list of verses throughout the Bible that places an emphasis on God’s words. This list comes from Dr. D.A.Waite’s classic entitled Defending the King James Bible. I will not take the time to elaborate upon any of these verses but they are provided for your reference. Perhaps you can copy and paste this list to a separate file, save them, and when you have time study these verses:

Exo. 4:28, 19:6, 19:7, 20:1, 24:3, 24:4, 24:8, 34:1, 34:27, 34:28, 35:1, Num. 11:24, Deut. 1:1, 4:10, 4:12, 4:36, 5:22, 6:6, 9:10, 10:2, 11:18, 12:28, 17:19, 18:18, 18:19, 27:3, 27:8, 27:26, 28:14, 28:58, 29:1, 29:9, 29:29, 31:12, 31:24, 32:46, Josh. 3:9, 8:34, 1 Sam. 3:19, 15:1, 2 Kgs. 22:13, 23:2, 23:3, 2 Chr. 11:4, 34:21, 34:30, 34:31, Ezra 7:11, 9:4, Neh. 8:9, 8:13, Job 6:10, 19:23, 23:12, Ps. 12:6, 107:11, 119:57, 119:103, 119:130, 119:139, Pro. 30:6, Isa. 51:16, Jer. 1:9, 6:19, 7:8, 7:27, 11:3, 11:6, 11:8, 13:10, 15:16, 16:10, 19:2, 23:22, 23:30, 23:36, 26:2, 26:15, 29:19, 29:23, 30:2, 34:18, 35:13, 36:2, 36:4, 36:6, 36:8, 36:11, 36:18, 36:27, 36:28, 45:1, Eze. 2:7, 3:4, 3:10, 33:32, Amos 8:11, Zech. 7:7, 7:12, Mat. 24:35, Mark 8:38, 13:31, Luke 9:26, Luke 21:33, 24:44, Jn. 3:34, 6:63, 6:68, 8:47, 12:48, 14:10, 14:23, 15:7, 17:8, Acts 15:15, 1 Cor. 2:4, 2:13, Eph. 5:6, Col. 2:4, 1 Thes. 4:18, 1 Tim. 4:6, 6:3, 2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Pet. 2:3, 3:2, Jude 1:17, Rev. 1:3, 22:18, 22:19.

I hope this information is a help to you. And I pray that you will find the answers you are looking for in your quest for truth. God bless.

[George]

"Some of my good brethren may disagree with me on this, but it won't be the first time they've been wrong and I forgive them. "

Aloha brother Manny,

I am in agreement with you. God can have His perfect word in another language. Is our God "limited" to just English? I trow not! On the other hand,I don't think that there are very many Bibles in other languages that have "measured up" to the King James Bible, in purity and authority.

I appreciate your testimony about the Reina Valera Gomez Bible (aka RVG). I have heard (and read) so much conflicting testimony about the different Valera's that I didn't know what to believe. I will accept your testimony (and the work you have done in researching this issue) as the truth.

Just an added note of appreciation. I really have appreciated all of your posts brother. They are always thoughtful, well-reasoned, and appropriate.

May our God bless you and yours always.

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy word,
George Anderson

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Some of the Tyndale Bible weaknesses are simply reflections of the early date, that the significant Stephanus and Beza scholarship had not yet come to pass, refining the Reformation Bible. Thus you will find "their purification" in Luke 2:22, an error later corrected.

As a sidenote: the David Daniell book has a high point of showing great respect for William Tyndale. However it is marred by a total unappreciation of the Reformation Bible in general (falling for the modern textcrit nonsense) and a somewhat typical set of biases against the majestic and pure King James Bible (I am not yet up to that section). The book, all 800 pages or so, was library available.

It does seem that the grand and wonderful English of our Bible owes a lot to William Tyndale, and then the wonderful work of the learned and skilled translators of the King James Bible writing in a time where English writing was very strong.

Shalom,
Steven

I answered you on similar questions before, and you should take George's advice, because you have to get it yourself.
You should go to George's essay on why he believe the King James, it is a sticky, otherwise we are just not going to buy you are all that sincere