Readings from Rheims 1582 NT were used about 2,800 times in KJV1611

[bgwilkinson]

"The Part of the Rheims in the making of the English Bible", James G. Carleton 1902

The listing of readings taken from the Rheims and not from any other previous English edition are on pages 85 to 222. This should get you started if you are interested.

It is quit amazing when you realize that the KJV is in a large part a Catholic Bible.


http://books.google.com/books/download/The_part_of_Rheims_in_the_making_of_the.pdf?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ&hl=en&capid=AFLRE73QHigZpFO2OjnPWf9mdV_P0tey4uoXJwngzWt8N3RDUM0pkQY8M5fE0NnPQQiEAJt0sYIoNjWlWjqPTPIYgPlHAc6QeA&continue=http://books.google.com/books/download/The_part_of_Rheims_in_the_making_of_the.pdf%3Fid%3DxgwXAAAAYAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is the link to the Rheims and Bishops Bible listed in Carletons book.

http://archive.org/download/FulkeNewTestamentConfutation1589/Fulke1589.pdf

 

[bgwilkinson]

This one is also mentioned in the book.

"The English Hexapla" Bagster

http://books.google.com/books/download/The_English_Hexapla.pdf?id=IYNPAAAAYAAJ&hl=en&capid=AFLRE73qdMPYXxZMpHacPYqgNvYNPXJZjuflG8uW96NwqImMAiWLBgUn4DEGWS42JqtEVvla7fVd2mmt35-LYHda8OztyJjq-A&continue=http://books.google.com/books/download/The_English_Hexapla.pdf%3Fid%3DIYNPAAAAYAAJ%26output%3Dpdf%26hl%3Den

 

[bgwilkinson]

Oh and you'll need this one too because our new modern revised and updated KJVs may not match the Early Modern English of the KJV 1611 since it has been revised, corrected and mutilated so many times.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

This could be exiting. Another original source.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Any of you KJVOs got the courage to take an honest look at the historical facts presented in this OP?

I know that the reading can be ponderously difficult for our modern readers.

Why not look and see?

Are you afraid of what you might find in these unbiased original sources?

I believe Mr. Carleton wrote before KJVO dogma had come into existence. I do not believe he is an anti KJVO writer.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Any of you KJVOs got the courage to take an honest look at the historical facts presented in this OP?

The learned men of the AV used the best phrasing for each verse, individually considered, without a genetic fallacy.  Often the Rheims NT was excellent in that regard, although many of its excellencies were shared with the Geneva and other English Bibles.

What the learned men did not do was take the Vulgate text over the Received Text editions as the source text.  The few claims I have seen in that regard have not stood up to examination.

However, it is fair to point out that the Vulgate text is vastly superior to the modern version Vaticanus-primacy text.  (A point often not given by AV defenders).  And that the Old Latin and Vulgate sources contributed to the development of the pure Reformation Bible editions, as an adjunct to the fountainhead Greek manuscripts, ECW and special considerations, such as internal evidences.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

Any of you KJVOs got the courage to take an honest look at the historical facts presented in this OP?

The learned men of the AV used the best phrasing for each verse, individually considered, without a genetic fallacy.  Often the Rheims NT was excellent in that regard, although many of its excellencies were shared with the Geneva and other English Bibles.

What the learned men did not do was take the Vulgate text over the Received Text editions as the source text.  The few claims I have seen in that regard have not stood up to examination.

However, it is fair to point out that the Vulgate text is vastly superior to the modern version Vaticanus-primacy text.  (A point often not given by AV defenders).  And that the Old Latin and Vulgate sources contributed to the development of the pure Reformation Bible editions, as an adjunct to the fountainhead Greek manuscripts, ECW and special considerations, such as internal evidences.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

I do not believe you read the book and read the original sources listed, they tell a different story.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If you are talking about the textual source, all you have to do is give a few variants where you believe the AV followed the Vulgate contra the Received Text editions. 

James George Carleton (1848-1918) does not help us much on that aspect, as he does not review Received Text editions.  The word "Complutensian" is not the book, Erasmus has two mentions, Stephanus none, Beza one.

As to the Geneva and Rheims often agreeing translationally:

"A considerable number of readings are peculiar to the Genevan, Rhemish, and Authorized Versions." p. 28

Good English writing has a strong Latin component, so if a phrase has a Latinesque vocabulary or style, that should be no surprise.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven