[Daniel Haifley]

I am involved in a project right now which is an effort to prove the problems of the 1960 edition of the Spanish Bible. As you may be aware there has been in recent years an effort to produce a King James Equivalent Spanish Bible. Due to the vitriol rhetoric on the part of some, many good people have refused to even look at the problems of the 1960 Reina Valera which was influenced by the critical text. So, about 5 years ago my staff and I started researching all of the Spanish Bibles that had ever been produced. Way back to the 1400's there was a Spanish translation of the scriptures (This one, incidentally was Authorized by the King of Spain and was produced by a Jewish rabbi- its called the Alba Bible.) We started lining them up, side by side, comparing them with the King James Version and found some interesting things. We decided to publish our findings in an Octopla format as a recourse for the Spanish speaking brethren, without any commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. Several of the versions that predate the KJV are very similar- almost identical in fact. However, there are some differences. (Men like Humberto Gomez, Jeff McCardle and others have been attempting to fix the problems and republish the Spanish Bible for the church today.) The similarities were interesting, so, I started researching the translation work to find out when it was being done etc. Imagine my surprise to find 4 different European Bible's being translated at the same time by men who appeared to be comparing their translations with each other. Tyndale, who built the foundation that the King James Translation Committee used as their base (95% identical to the KJV), was a contemporary with Enzinas who put together the first complete Spanish Bible. Enzinas lived in Melanchthon's house while he was working on his edition. Melanchthon was Martin Luther's understudy and was assisting Luther in his translation into German. There was also another European language that was being worked on at the same time, but I've got to go back and look at my notes to remember which one. Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny.

[Will Kinney]

Hi Daniel. All very interesting, but you still haven't answered the question. Is there ANY Bible in any language outside of the King James Bible that you consider to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

¿Hay alguna Biblia en español qué tú creas que sean las completas e inspiradas palabras de Dios?

Aceptos en el Amado - Efesios 1:6

Will Kinney

[Will Kinney]

Hey Daniel. Do you by any chance have the link to the Spanish Bible of 1280 by rey Alfonso? About three years ago I did a big project for one of my Spanish classes at Colorado University and I used to have the link to a site that showed the New Testament portion of La Biblia Alfonsina of 1280. I did a comparison of it with the Greek of the TR, and compared it also to the Latin and the modern Spanish. It is not a very good translation, but it was quite interesting to see the old Spanish words, spelling and grammar. Now I can't find that link anymore. (I did a Google search too) Have you ever run across it? I think it was the first complete Bible to be made in the Spanish language. If you have the link, I would love to see it again.

Gracias,
Will K

[Will Kinney]

Hola Daniel. I found it. The only thing apparently that is online is the gospel of Saint Luke. It is missing the first few verses, but has most of the gospel of Luke. It is pretty interesting for those of you who know how to read Spanish. By the way, I am not an expert in Latin. I only know a few things about that language, but I am fluent in Spanish.

It is quite interesting to see the "old" Spanish spelling and vocabulary. In some places it is almost impossible to understand, yet most words are still pretty close to modern day Spanish.

Here is the link:

http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Alfo...s_Parte_1.html

Will K

[George]

"Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny."

Aloha Daniel,

I'm somewhat disappointed that you haven't addressed brother Will Kinney's question, and that you have ignored everything that I have posted in regards to some of your comments. I'm not trying to "strain at a gnat" here, but some of the things that you have stated in your last Post (#91) need "clarification".

You said:

"The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect?"

Are you claiming: IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between the Cambridge & Oxford King James Bibles that one of them would be in error? Do spelling or grammatical differences equal WORD CHANGES? Is God concerned with spelling and grammatical rules and changes? Or is He concerned with His Holy words? Since you didn't spell out what you believe about this issue, but inserted this statement within your Post, I'm curious as to whether you personally believe - IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between King James Bibles, whether you would consider one of those Bibles to be in error, and by inference, IMPERFECT?

In keeping with my habit of trying to be as accurate as is humanly possible when dealing with any issue, I find your following statement confusing and wanting in accuracy and clarity:

"In 1881 the King James Revision committee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version."

FACT: The so-called "King James Revision Committee" actually was called the "Revising Body"; "The Revisionists"; or simply "The English Committee". It was never called, nor was it known, at the time, as the "King James Revision Committee", simply because the NAME "King James Bible" did NOT EXIST IN 1881! The name "King James Bible" did NOT come into vogue until the late 1930's (no one seems to know exactly WHEN the Publishers of Bibles {$$$} CHANGED the NAME from "The Holy Bible"!)

FACT: "The English Committee". had been authorized to "revise" the "Authorized Version" (i.e. The Holy Bible) by the Southern Convocation of the Anglican Church (the whole of the Anglican Church did not authorize a Revision of The Holy Bible - much less authorize the production of a NEW VERSION (the English Revised Version i.e. the "RV") of the Holy Bible.

FACT: From June, 1870 up to 1881 (when the Revised Version was first published) Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (who had previously worked together {secretly} for about 20 years producing their own "revised' Greek Text) had been secretly bringing in their own "revised" Greek Text into the "Revisers" committee meetings (in place of the "Textus Receptus") and were subtilely continually influencing the "Revisers" to abandon the "Textus Receptus" (as the basis for the New Testament in English) and instead USE their own "revised" Greek Text in its place.

You said:

"In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text."

FACT: Westcott & Hort did NOT just "reinsert the Critical Text" at that ONE MEETING! The FACT is that Westcott and Hort had been subtilely doing their "dirty work" (displacing the Textus Receptus with their own corrupt Greek Text ) for over ten years (the entire time that the "Revisers" met) - NOT just one last meeting in 1881!

You said:

"I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny."

I wouldn't worry about "stealing the faith" of a genuine Bible believer on this Forum, especially since you will not answer a simple question put to you by another brother in Christ on this Forum, and ignore the comments made by others (myself included) in regards to the issue of translating The Holy BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} into other languages.

Your statement:

"I am not trying to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth."

My faith is based on "TRUTH" - BIBLE TRUTH [John 17:17] Did you think that you can come onto a AV1611 Forum and make statements that are inaccurate and misinformed, without someone calling it to your attention? I looked at the "information" you just gave us back in 1968. I not only "pondered over it" and "considered it"; I studied the issue in great depth. Some of us have spent a whole lot of time studying this issue (speaking for myself - between 1968 through 1988 I spent a minimum of 12,000 to 15,00 hours studying the Bible "issue"; and when it comes to this issue, there are several men on this Forum that can make "mincemeat" out of me). We aren't a bunch of wild-eyed KJBO FANATICS - spouting off about matters that we know nothing about!

As you have said: "I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts." Well, I too “don't mean to be contentious”; and, I too "want an honest answer to the facts". As a matter of fact - "I'm a "stickler" for FACTS that can be verified; and my comments may seem "picayune" to you or some others on the Forum, but I want to know why it is that when Christians make certain claims or statements that cannot be proven, or shown NOT to be true or factual, WHY is it that many Christians EXCUSE misstatements, error, or outright lies - as if the truth about an issue does not matter?

My advise to you is - make sure of your "FACTS" before you make statements; otherwise people will not take you very seriously, when some of the statements that you make can be shown to be in error.

The work that you are doing is to be commended - IF you are using The Holy BIBLE as the FINAL AUTHORITY in your translating work; If you aren't using the King James Bible as your "exemplar" (i.e. Foundation), then I, for one, cannot commend you for anything. The Holy Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} says:

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

If ALL God’s works “are done in truth” – shouldn’t ALL our works “be done in truth" also?

[chette777]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It seems better to me, on the above testimony, to be involved in the Christian-oriented teaching of people English, (and allow for the world to become anglicised), and use the KJB than the alternative. After all, if Jesus did return and there was no KJB-equivalent Tagalog Version, would He be unjust in the light of Matthew 24:14? I trow not.

Actually I am teaching them English. From April 13-30 I will be teaching both English, and Rightly dividing w/a Dispensational NT Survey course. and it will be to a inter-denominational group. I have requested KJV Bibles for both courses and got no argument from the administrator.

Also in the Open Bible Bible College that I teach at during the regular School year. the students are being taught English. the English words used in the KJV best represent the Hebrew and Greek (no need to go to them) in that the English words like the original language (though not using any manuscripts) are broad in meaning just like the inspired originals (if any could be found) so their understanding of broad meaning English words is where the problem lays. Like Hebrew and Greek these English words found in the KJV have multiple meanings which are great for teaching through the scriptures while most are clearly defined by context, a spiritual application can be found in the other sub meanings of the words as well.

the biggest problem is clear understanding of words in English and they to fully understand in their Tagalog mind. So KJV primarily and a Tagalog version if the Lord tarries as a compliment to it. if that happens and we are able to print it will be the Tagalog KJV along side the English KJV when printed. Unlike the current Tagalog and English Parallel Bible which is a Tagalog ASV along side an English KJV.

[tonybones2112]

[QUOTE=George;17536]Aloha brother Bones,

Although some of your comments may accurately describe some people on the Forum you need to be more specific as to who you are addressing:

Your quote:
WHO (on the Forum) are you addressing? ALL of us?

You said:
Again Manny and Brett have been “ill used” by WHOM? Certainly not ALL of us!

Brother George, they come in(Manny first)and rather than being welcomed and offered words of praise and edification, his messages are picked apart like some Church Of Christ "elder" at a "debate" straining at gnats. Then Brett and then Daniel, and now we are all that's left to contend among ourselves.I didn't join this group to devils advocate everything you all believe. I have the highest regard for every person who posted in this thread. Will knows me well enough that he's seen my claws bared at the Original Manuscript Frauds. He'll tell you I am being a nice guy in this forum. I'm not out to earn any disciples but so far I have been the only one to speak up. I'm not dragging Will into this, he agrees with me in principle, but I'm asking again, these guys seem to have been reacted to as if they were secret agents for The Lockman Foundation and intruders.

I have not yet answered Bible Protector's message to me here in detail, several of them in other threads also, but that is not out of disrespect to him. I just think I have read in this thread the possibility that the KJV is or already has become Mose's brass serpent. I apologize if I offended you brother George.

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death...

No, not all of the readers of this forum are being accused of anything brother George, but does anybody else(besides brother Will) feel as I do? Speak now or forever hold your peace?

Alrighty then, let's grab our cloaks and move on. I'm going to continue to answer messages directed to me in this thread but I'm working on a booklet called The Original Manuscript Fraud, the second portion will be my translation called The New Revised International Living Original Manuscript Version In Archaic Jacobean English.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Tony, you and I see things slightly differently, but I look forward to seeing you on FFF. I don't go there for fellowship, I go for combat training. There are some decent folks there. ChaplainPaul and Mitex(Brent) are brethren-in-arms. .... then there is roby Now, ransom makes roby look like an angel.

Suit up, Brother!

Tim, I'm already over there and cut loose my introductory broadside in BIBLEVERSIONS, the threads are the Inspiration Poll and What Bible Do You Read? Roby has felt my lash, and don't expect him to answer any of my questions, he can't answer them. To be blunt with you all, I don't consider a lot of those people over there to be saved Christians, but deceived Neoevangelical/Neo-orthodox/ Protestant/ Charasmatics and not fundamentalists. I don't have a lot of time to fight with them so my messages are gonna be with both barrels, I don;t have as much time as I would LIKE to spend in this forum, so they are a sideline, but remember this: When I first joined this group I commented on what I call The Woodpeckers, The Doorknockers, Mormons, JWs, and other cultist pairs at your door. You have to bounce your Scripture off the hardcase into the newbie they are trying to train. I'm not out to win an argument with Roby or anybody, but to ridicule their arguments and let the Scriptures shine a light on how dumb those arguments are, because there are 50 readers of that forum for every person who posts messages. Just like on Mars Hill.

Acts 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

This is our pattern for doing the work of an evangelist. Let them mock and spew their poison, we're getting through to someone. See, manuscript evidence returns to God void, His words don't.

I got your six. Hoorah.

Grace and peace

Tony

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Daniel Haifley

Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors.

And now we have it. A person who claims to stand for the King James Version speaking against certainty and trust in that version (at least, that is the implication from the above quoted statement).

First of all, no English Bible is identical to Erasmus, after all, there are (at least) five different Erasmus editions. What we find, notably with the KJB, is that it gathers from a variety of sources.

We are then told that there are five different revisions of the 1611. Actually, there are scores of minor revisions, several major ones, and some which do not count.

Next, we are told the completely unfactual statement, that the 1762 Edition is used today. It is not. Just look at the following links:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Then we are told that the only spelling and grammar has been altered. Of course, this cannot be all that was changed, since there were obvious printer's errors in 1611 which also needed correction.

Furthermore, we are told that there are only 3 differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge. In fact there are scores of differences, if you look at the above links, you will see that.

And so we come to that question: Which one is exactly perfect?

This is the same question the anti-KJBO people ask. The answer is clear and simple. Just read these booklets:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/THE_FI...AMES_BIBLE.pdf
http://www.bibleprotector.com/God's_...ames_Bible.pdf

Finally, the editorial work on the KJB was nothing like the reason behind the RV committee, and the RV work was just an accelerated form of the kind of bad revisionary editions made by Webster, the ABS, Scrivener (or Norton). In the case of the RV, the underlying text was drastically altered, but it is just as bad to change words like "bewray" into "betray", etc.

P.S. What is the 1615 Edition?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

P.S. Tony, you sure don't do the "soft, sweet approach", do you. I saw your first couple of posts at FFF. It is going to get WILD!!

He he, brother, you think my opening broadside was wild? Let's examine some of the topics, my beliefs, that we will discuss in this forum among brothers and sisters, flesh and bone of His flesh and bone:

I believe Judas Iscariot is(will be)the Antichrist.
I believe in the firstborn always being rejected.
I believe the Antichrist will be killed in the Temple by a Muslim fundamentalist wielding a scimitar, possibly a member of an "honor" bodyguard.
I believe the foundation of the Christian "religion", as it were, is NOT the Lord Jesus Christ, but His RESURRECTION.
I believe the Two Witnesses in Revelation will be Moses and Elijah.
I believe they will be killed at Christmas and their bodies will be shown on CNN and Fox.
I believe the "star" of Bethlehem was an angel, and Christ Himself.
I believe Paul died of pneumonia, not execution.
I believe the first water baptism occurred in Leviticus 8.
I believe the KJV is the perfect and inspired word of God in ENGLISH. It's worthless paper to a Zulu who can't read it.
I believe the Gap Theory is a gap between some folk's ears.
I believe Joshua write the ending of the Torah.
I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.
I believe Elihu write Job.
I believe the Scriptures will be divided by God into 77 books, or 11 more books are yet to be inspired, as 66 books is the number of man and is an incomplete number.
I believe the Dead Sea is the Lake Of Fire.
I believe the "unknown" tongues of i Cor.14 is merely foreign languages as demonstrated at Acts 2.
I believe my spirit is before the Face of the Father and was cut(circumcized) out of me and that I live because the Holy Spirit has been given in place of mine.
I believe the pope is the false prophet and not the Antichrist.
I believe the Antichrist will be a Jew-Gentile cardinal of the Maronite Catholic Church of Lebanon who will rise and "settle" the Middle Eastern "problem" and be declared the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
I believe Cain's wife was one of his sisters.

We got a lot to discuss over in the Bible Study thread of this forum, don't we brother?

Now, you think what I've written above is wild, as Paul said of the fall of the Jews, how much wilder do you think it's gonna get at FFF?

They can mock and "answer" manuscript evidence, Greek/Hebrew grammar. Those are sciences that have been perverted and falsely so called "sciences", vain philosophies, vain jangling and tinkling brass. That's their jungle. My jungle is the words of God. Brother Tim, He must increase, I must decrease, but personally I've seen rocks thrown at my wife on the street witnessing for the Lord Jesus Christ. I've been hit with bags of urine in Zip-Lock bags on the street. Do you know for certain or not if the person in line behind you at McDonalds has syphilis or not? So what might be in an average Zip-Lock bag of urine?

There's been no closer instance of hell on earth than the Battle Of Gettysburg. So if they think a man who lived through the 3 days of that battle is going to be impressed with a group of children having a schoolyard brawl, well, you're going to read it

1Ki 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

Grace and peace brother Tim, give FFF the words of God, they will not return to Him void.

Tony