1611 KJV's title page and its images

[logos1560]

KJV defender Laurence Vance acknowledged that ?the engraved title page depicts the Trinity in the upper panel in the form of the Divine Name, a dove, and a lamb? (King James, His Bible, p. 55).  Gordon Campbell maintained that ?the godhead is represented by symbols rather than pictorial representation? (Bible, p. 100).  Concerning the engraved 1611 title page, Alister McGrath maintained that ?the upper panel depicts the Trinity in a conventional style? (In the Beginning, p. 207).  McGrath noted that ?the ?lamb and flag? is generally interpreted as a symbol of the resurrection of the crucified Christ? (p. 209).  Benson Bobrick affirmed that the 1611 title page depicted ?the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove? (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

At the bottom of the title page of the 1611 KJV, Geddes MacGregor observed that it has ?a traditional symbol of the redeeming work of Christ, especially in the Eucharist--a pelican ?vulning? herself, that is, wounding herself with her beak to feed her young with her own blood? (Literary History, p. 205).

Concerning the 1611 title page, Derek Wilson asserted that ?an interesting feature is the inclusion of Catholic imagery? (People?s Bible, p. 123).  Gordon Campbell claimed: ?The figure of Peter is strikingly Catholic: not only is he the sole possessor of the keys (whereas on the Coverdale cover all apostles have been issued with keys), but he is paired with Paul on either side of the godhead, which is the normal arrangement in Catholic altarpieces? (Bible, pp. 100-101).

Derek Wilson noted: ?The apostles are shown with the traditional symbols of their martyrdom and, at the foot of the page, there is a drawing of a pelican in her piety (a heraldic device depicting a pelican feeding her young with her own blood), which Catholic convention employed to represent the sacrifice of Christ in the mass? (People?s Bible, p. 123).  Alister McGrath observed: ?There is a curious irony to this symbol. In the Middle Ages, the image of a pelican came to be linked with the Lord?s Supper or Mass, especially with the medieval ecclesiastical feast of Corpus Christi? (In the Beginning, p. 210).  Benson Bobrick maintained that the 1611 title page has ?a pelican (symbol of Christ) shown feeding her young with blood from her own breast? (Wide as the Waters, p. 252).

 

[prophet]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"

Too rich!

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[biscuit1953]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"

Too rich!

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

To imply that Bible scholars worship the Vaticanus manuscript is really dishonest.  To give weight to manuscripts that were closer to the original writings sounds perfectly reasonable.  To your point though, it is just as wrong to worship one manuscript to the exclusion of all others as it is to worship one version of the Bible written 400 years ago in a language that is foreign to modern day English speaking people to the exclusion of all others.

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm
King James Onlyists also ignore the words honoring the Christ missing in the KJV.

Jude 25:
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (NIV).
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen" (KJV).
John 14:14
"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it" (NIV).
"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" (KJV).

Should we pray to Jesus Christ as well as praying through Him to the Father? Clearly, first-century Christians did both. Regarding the former, Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, prayed directly to Jesus, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59).
This is a good point to make with the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Lord's deity. (By the way, the Hagin-Copeland crowd likewise denies praying directly to Jesus.)

The Mormons are also KJV onlyites. Does that mean you are in their camp?  There are many other verses where modern translations are clearer on the deity of Christ and other doctrines.

An honest man will admit when he is wrong.  Will you be honest?

 

[Ransom]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"

"Vaticanus lovers"?

OK then. Feel free to continue advertising your ignorance for all to see.

 

[logos1560]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"
Too rich!

Actually it may be KJV-only hypocrisy that is being displayed. 

Do you disobey the KJV and bear false witness since I am not a "Vaticanus" lover as you falsely alleged?     

Considering the sound, credible evidence of readings added by Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) to the Greek New Testament from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and of several renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims found in the KJV, it seems very inconsistent and even hypocritical for KJV-only advocates to attempt to condemn all modern translations as supposedly being Roman Catholic Bibles.

For example, Peter Ruckman asserted that "all the New Bibles are the Roman Catholic Vulgate of Jerome restored via Westcott and Hort" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 155).  Peter Ruckman contended that ?every Bible translated since 1880 is a Roman Catholic Bible, or a Communist Bible? (p. 156).  Ruckman suggested that all other English versions besides the KJV ?are Roman Catholic Bibles from the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582? (Bible Believers? Bulletin, March, 1981, p. 4).  Ruckman claimed that ?every Bible translated since 1880 contained the Jesuit readings of 1582? (Differences in the KJV Editions, p. 4).  In a booklet, Ruckman referred to ?the Jesuit Text of Vaticanus (1582)? and ?the Dark Age Bible of 1582,? claiming that it is being published in present English Bibles (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 12).  Ruckman referred to a line of Bibles ?that match the Jesuit Rheim?s Bible of 1582, published by the Vatican State? (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).  Both W. Bruce Musselman and R. A. Seely claimed that ?correcting the authorized King James Bible reinstates the Roman Catholic Bible? (Bible Believers? Bulletin, December, 1979, p. 4 and July, 1981, p. 4). 

Would a consistent application of Ruckman?s own allegations in effect condemn or harm the KJV? 
Would Ruckman condemn the KJV translators for their use of the 1582 Rheims as a model or source for some renderings introduced in the 1611 KJV? 

How do KJV-only advocates explain any changes or alterations made in the KJV to the good pre-1611 English Bibles that would have pleased Roman Catholics and were in agreement with the 1582 Rheims, which they have placed on their line of corrupt Bibles? 

Would KJV-only advocates suggest that revising or correcting the pre-1611 English Bibles with renderings from the 1582 Rheims was partially reinstating the Roman Catholic Bible?

If KJV-only advocates in effect permit the KJV translators the latitude to adopt a reading or a rendering from non-received text sources, on what consistent, just basis can they condemn another translation for supposedly doing the same thing? 

Evidently, KJV-only allegations and KJV-only reasoning are not based on the use of consistent, just measures or standards.   

 

[logos1560]

Charles Butterworth noted:  "There are instances where the Rheims New Testament reads differently from all the preceding versions and yet has been followed later by similar readings in the King James Bible, indicating that the translators of 1611 by no means ignored the work that was done in 1582" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 195). 

T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule wrote:  ?This Rheims New Testament exerted a very considerable influence on the version of 1611, transmitting to it not only an extensive vocabulary, but also numerous distinctive phrases and turns of expression? (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions, p. 96).  Darlow and Moule noted that ?the Rheims New Testament, though not mentioned, contributed appreciably to the changes introduced? (p. 134). 
David Daniell wrote:  "Another, more serious, push toward Latinity came from the influence on the [KJV] panels of the extremely Latinate Roman Catholic translation from Rheims" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xiii).  David Norton asserted that ?Rheims?s prime contribution to the KJB was an added sprinkle of latinate vocabulary in the NT? (KJB: a Short History, p. 32).  John R. Kohlenberger III observed:  ?Although Bancroft did not list the Catholic Rheims (1582) translation of the New Testament as a resource to be used, and although Miles Smith does not cite it by name, the translators occasionally followed its readings? (Burke, Translation That Openeth the Window, p. 47). 

    J. R. Dore wrote:  "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303).  Charles Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). 

In an introductory article on "The English Bible" in The Interpeter's Bible, Allen Wikgren also noted that the Rheims "exerted a considerable influence upon the King James revision, in which many of its Latinisms were adopted" (Vol. I, p. 93).  Herbert May confirmed that "some of its [the Rheims] phrases were used by the King James Version translators" (Our English Bible in the Making, p. 47).  In his 1808 answer to the reprinting of Ward?s 1688 book Errata of the Protestant Bible, Edward Ryan referred to the KJV translators ?adopting the Romish Version in very many instances? and to their making corrections ?agreeably to the popish construction? (Analysis, pp. 5-6). 
Benson Bobrick also observed; "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (Wide as the Waters, p. 244).  Samuel Fisk also acknowledged that the Rheims had "an influence upon the King James Version" (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74). 

James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32).  In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV. 

    It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops' N. T.  In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23).  John Greider observed that ?This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible? (English Bible Translations, p. 316).  Peter Thuesen pointed out:  ?William Fulke?s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists? Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible? (In Discordance, p. 62).  David Norton noted that KJV translator William Branthwaite had a copy of ?Fulke?s parallel edition of the Rheims and Bishops? in his personal library (KJB: Short History, p. 64).  Norton also pointed out that the Bodleian Library in 1605 had a copy of Fulke?s edition of the Rheims and Bishops? New Testaments (Ibid.).  Even Gail Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke?s book with these verse comparisons, but she in effect ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536). 

    W. F. Moulton stated:  "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207).    Diarmaid MacCulloch and Elizabeth Solopova asserted that in the KJV ?it was possible to see some of the readings of the Doua-Rheims version amid all the work of Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva translators? (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 38). 
Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings  as  any  other  version"  (Translating  the  N. T.  Epistles, p. xxv).  Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29).    About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted:  ?The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you? (Translating for King James, p. 18).  Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that ?this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations? (p. 30).  Allen also observed:  "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63).  The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [?willing in humility?] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [?willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion?] (p. 63).  Was the KJV?s rendering ?voluntary? borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims?  The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims.

 

[logos1560]

KJV-only author Doug Stauffer referred to the Douay-Rheims as ?the Jesuit English Roman Catholic Bible? (One Book Stands Alone, p. 204).  Diarmaid MacCulloch noted that the Roman Catholic English translation ?was not for ordinary folks to read, but for priests to use as a polemical weapon?the explicit purpose that the 1582 title-page and preface of the Rheims New Testament proclaimed? (The Reformation, p. 566). 

In the introductory articles in Hendrickson?s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that ?the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible? (p. 28),

David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims ?make Martin a drafterof the KJB? (KJB: a Short History, p. 32).  David Norton added:  ?Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome?s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB? (Ibid.).  Norton pointed out that ?the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views? (History of the English Bible, p. 54).  Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that ?it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin?s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression? (Guiding Light, p. 219).

    The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. 

In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating:  ?Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example? (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230).    Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims ?was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,? and he listed it in his ?Critical text? stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296).    Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his ?corrupted tree? of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104).    H. D. Williams maintained that ?the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome?s Latin Vulgate? (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 42).

Peter Ruckman acknowledged that ?the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome?s Latin Vulgate,? but he also claimed in his endnotes that ?the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text? (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517).  Peter Ruckman referred to ?Satan?s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582? (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). 

Here are some questions based on a serious consideration of claims made by KJV-only authors.

Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome?s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings? 

Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims? 

Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view?s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning? 

Does a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that the makers of the KJV borrowed renderings from a corrupted source when they borrowed from the 1582 Rheims? 

Would KJV-only advocates suggest that Satan?s interest was involved in the KJV?s borrowing of renderings from the 1582 Rheims? 

Is a Pandora?s box opened when professed Bible believers accept any renderings from the Latin Vulgate or the 1582 Rheims being inserted into their claimed pure stream of Bibles? 

Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning suggest that a little leaven from the 1582 Rheims would leaven the whole KJV?

Considering the fact of the multiple textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV and the borrowed renderings from the 1582 Rheims, would it be accurate to suggest that the KJV emerges solely from the Received Text? 
Do renderings from the 1582 Rheims make the KJV a hybrid Bible? 
Could the KJV?s borrowing from the Latin Vulgate or 1582 Rheims serve as a bridge to the modern versions? 

Is it now very clear that Williams and other KJV-only advocates do not apply their own measures, criteria, or requirements concerning translating to the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV even though they may inconsistently use them to criticize later English Bibles?  .

 

[prophet]

And, as expected,socially inept as well.

Carry on, I've got the popcorn, now.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"

Too rich!

Did a factually inept poster throw out a completely false or bogus allegation that he cannot back up?

Is this poster unwilling to fact and deal with actual facts concerning the KJV?

 

[prophet]

Always get a laugh out of you "Vaticanus" lovers calling anything else "Catholic"

Too rich!

Did a factually inept poster throw out a completely false or bogus allegation that he cannot back up?

Is this poster unwilling to fact and deal with actual facts concerning the KJV?

Quit it, the suspense is killing me....

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

Did a factually inept poster throw out a completely false or bogus allegation that he cannot back up?

Is this poster unwilling to fact and deal with actual facts concerning the KJV?

Quit it, the suspense is killing me....

Admitting or accepting the truth should not hurt you.

 

[prophet]

Did a factually inept poster throw out a completely false or bogus allegation that he cannot back up?

Is this poster unwilling to fact and deal with actual facts concerning the KJV?

Quit it, the suspense is killing me....

Admitting or accepting the truth should not hurt you.

You ask loaded questions as a way to cast doubt.

Wow.

Marx would be proud, if he wasn't too busy keeping  your seat warm....

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[logos1560]

.
You ask loaded questions as a way to cast doubt.

Cast doubt on what? 

You fail to prove your allegation to be true.   

Some of my proper questions are intended to test the claims of others by applying them consistent and justly while other questions are intended to lead to the consistent truth.    Many of my questions are based on questions asked by KJV-only advocates but merely applied consistently and justly including to the KJV.    Are you suggesting that the questions that KJV-only advocates ask are loaded?  It is sound and proper to take questions that KJV-only advocates themselves ask about another English translation and apply them back to the KJV, which is also an English translation.   

You do not demonstrate that my questions cast any doubt on the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Are my questions loaded with the truth since they are based on the scripturally-based principle of the use of consistent, just measures or standards?