Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Hi folks... just got back in town. Good to see one of my favorite topics come up!

To answer your question, here is a quote from David Cloud concerning this issue:

[i]John Burgon’s research into the text of the scripture through church history has, in some ways, never been equaled. This is particularly true of his research into the quotations from the scriptures of the church leaders of antiquity.

To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D. By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

This testimony of Burgon is not to be taken lightly. He knew as much about the Bible of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries as any man who has lived in the last 200 years. When he says that the Received Text is attested by Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible versions, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the writings of church “fathers” support the Received Text. This was a fact known by the Reformation editors. Whereas the textual critics of our day see this as a mere accident of history, the Bible-believing Reformation editors of old saw the hand of God in it. So do we.[/i]

And so do I...

Krispy

They are available... you just have to go dig for them.... in the British Museum.

... or amazon... whichever is easiest for you.

Krispy

Just to save anyone any possible disappointment, the main manuscripts which used to be at the British Museum were transferrred to the British Library some years ago.

Next time I'm over on your side of the creek I'll keep that in mind!

Good to see you here, brother! I've missed you!

Krispy

To answer the question, you have to know that there was the Recieved text and the Approved text. Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale were each translating from the greek and hebrew, around 1520 A.D., but the difference is that Erasmus was using the recieved and Tyndale the approved. Also, Tyndale translated directly from the original greek and hebrew, something Erasmus didn't. To add to the mix, Erasmus was also a humanist and put writing by Plato and other philosophers on the same level as the N.T. writers. It was from Tyndale that the KJV came into being. Therefore, in aswer to the orginal question, no, there was no KJV (the name King James should give a clue) before 400A.D. Hope this answers your question... :-)

Hello MMia:

I have searched diligently for the past ½ hour for the definition of the term “Approved text”. I have never heard that term applied to scripture. Approved by who? The POPE, Approved by the Gnostics?

I used Google as a search engine and typed “approved Bible versions”, "approved Bible" and found the following information linked to this search:

1. This was one site:

[b]The question posted was:
"Which is the standard bible version used by the Roman Catholic church in the UK? I know that the standard English Bible version used by the Catholic church in the USA is the New America Bible. I was wondering which was the one used in the UK and the rest of the English speaking world...Douay.Rheims, Jerusalem, REB?
Thanks!"[/b]

This is one answer that lists the[b] “approved Bible for the Roman Catholic Church”[/b]
•\t“Raymo is nearly correct. The New Jerusalem Bible has been[b] approved for liturgical use.[/b]

The[b] King James Version is not approved for use by the Roman Catholic Church.[/b]

This is another answer about “approved” Bible versions:
•\tWe use the Jerusulem Bible published in London by Darton, Longman and Todd.[b] However, other versions are allowed on occasion.[/b]

And finally, one more answer to the same question:

•\tDouay, and other[b] approved versions.[/b]

As I went through all of the links, the only continuous reference to “Approved” Bible versions had to do with the[b] Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.[/b]

The Catholic Church relies on the [b]minority text[/b], created by the first textual critics, the Gnostics. These are the men behind the Catholic Bible:

1. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.) He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

2. Tatian (150 A.D.) He was a disciple of Justin Martyr. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism. His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

3. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.) Clement was a disciple of Tatian and taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible. He also used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

4. Origen (184-254 A.D.)- Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation. He also stated "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." He was also one of the first textual critics.[b] His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).[/b]

5. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143). These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. [b]Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.[/b]

6. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

[b]The following three men were the ones who used the corrupt mss of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the corrupt Catholic Bible to create a corrupt Bible for the Protestant Church, thus confusing the body of Christ about which version is the correct version for the PROTESTANT- the RECEIVED TEXT, directly from the believing Church, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH?? Or the corrupted text, the "minority text", created by the Gnostics (listed above), who cut and pasted God's Word to conform to their own evil thoughts and ideas about what God should have said?:[/b]

7. Tischendorf (1869) -He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was a[b] liberal theologian.[/b]

8. Westcott and Hort (1881)- They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text.

Statements made by Westcott:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

Statements made by Hort:

"Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

[b]Textual History of the Bible[/b]
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a

Many Christians are completely unaware that modern Bible versions differ from the King James Bible in a way they never expected … they are not translated from the same Bible text!

The "RECEIVED TEXT" down through history, long before the advent of the printing press, men made copies of the Scriptures by hand.[b] However, they did not all do so with the same attitude toward the Scriptures.[/b] Many made their copies with a sense of spiritual awe, not daring to change a word, because it was the Word of God.[b] Archaeologists have found thousands of these copies from all over the ancient world, and been amazed at how they agree! Truly God did preserve His Word in His church. The text they give us is often called by one of the following names:[/b]

[b] Textus Receptus (Latin for "RECEIVED TEXT"--Received from the true Church, not Rome. The truth is always away from Rome!)

Byzantine Text - because of the part of the world in which we find it

Antiochan Text - the church at Antioch used it [/b]

The "Alexandrian Text"—[b]MMia, this must be the “approved text” you refer to:[/b]

[b]However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like.

The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.[/b]

[b]Choosing which text to use[/b]

All of our existing copies come from one of the two textual streams described above. [b]We call them "streams" because they are made of copies made from copies. By comparing them and noting their differences, it is easy to determine from which stream each copy came.

Honest scholars understood that if God really kept His promise to preserve His Word, then we would expect to find copies all over the church at large that agree. Sure enough, they found that 95% of all existing copies agreed, coming from the Antiochan (or Byzantine) text, so it was clear that the RECEIVED TEXT, based upon these agreeing copies all over the ancient church, was the correct one. This is the text used by Luther, Tyndale, Calvin, Matthews, Coverdale. When King James commissioned his famous English Bible translation, the scholars naturally used this Received Text.[/b]

Not everyone believed God kept His promise
In the mid nineteenth century, two scholars came along who helped to change everything. Their names were Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brook Foss Westcott. From their personal correspondence, it is clear that Hort and Westcott did not hold a faith comparable to that held by millions of evangelical Christians today. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., writes:
"It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.

Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "

Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."

Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.

It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria."
From "The Answer Book" by Samuel Gipp

Gaining positions on the committee to "revise" the King James Bible, Hort and [b]Westcott persuaded the committee to abandon the Received Text which had been preserved by the ancient church. Instead, the committee was convinced to use the Alexandrian text, provided by the Roman Catholic Church who had preserved it.[/b] They accepted the notion that God had not preserved His Word in the ancient Church, but had instead entrusted it to the hand of the Roman Catholic Church, the organization which had hunted and slaughtered Christians who dared possess their own copy of God's Word!

[b]Is this any way to translate a Bible?[/b]

Having sold the Alexandrian text to the revision committee, Hort and Westcott became the gurus of Bible texts. The translators often faced an impossible problem. Having abandoned the broad evidence of history, throwing out 95% of the available copies, they had to decide exactly what each verse should say based upon only 5% of the available evidence. And there was the problem. These few texts could not even agree with each other! How do you decide which is correct?

Enter Hort and Westcott. They decided what the text should say, and the committee dutifully translated it. So instead of the authority of the Bible text coming from the broad evidence of history, it was coming from the intellect of two respected scholars. God doesn't do things that way. A study of the lives and theology of these two men helps explain why their biblical text began to have holes in it … verses were missing!

[b][color=CC0000]It's a simple choice[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]All modern Bible versions are based upon the work of Hort and Westcott, using the corrupt Alexandrian text.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]The King James Bible is based upon the Received Text. [/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]If you believe that God allowed his Word to be hidden from the church for centuries, only to be revealed much later by the Roman Catholic Church, you will want a modern Bible based upon the Alexandrian text.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]If you believe that God preserved His Word in His church, throughout the centuries, you will want a King James Bible, based upon the historical Received Text. The choice is yours. [/color][/b]

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a

[b][color=CC0000]This is God's Word from the Bible, from the Old Testament: The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. YOU SHALL KEEP THEM, O LORD, YOU SHALL PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOREVER. The wicked prowl on every side, When vileness is exalted among the sons of men. Psalms 12:6-8

Do you believe God? Do you believe He can do anything? Do you believe God's Word, that says "The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. YOU SHALL KEEP THEM, O LORD, YOU SHALL PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOREVER."? I believe in God, and I believe God's Word, quoted above.It has been fulfilled before our eyes. We have God's preserved Word, through the believing Church, since the beginning of the Church.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]We also have mans corrupt word, cut and pieced together by sons of men, the gnostics---not sons of God. All true believers are sons of God, unbelievers are sons of men![/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

MMia wrote:
To answer the question, you have to know that there was the Recieved text and the Approved text. Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale were each translating from the greek and hebrew, around 1520 A.D., but the difference is that Erasmus was using the recieved and Tyndale the approved. Also, Tyndale translated directly from the original greek and hebrew, something Erasmus didn't. To add to the mix, Erasmus was also a humanist and put writing by Plato and other philosophers on the same level as the N.T. writers. It was from Tyndale that the KJV came into being. Therefore, in aswer to the orginal question, no, there was no KJV (the name King James should give a clue) before 400A.D. Hope this answers your question... :-)

MMia, you have tried to destroy Desiderius Erasmus with your untrue attack on his character, his intelligence, and his abilities, and the importance of his work in bringing the Received Text (received from the true Christian body of Christ) to the Protestant Christian Church, that was then responsible for the Reformation, that resulted in our break from the BOOT of CatholIcism.

You, my friend, should be ashamed of yourself!

A very good book, that goes into great detail on the issue of Desiderius Erasmus, as well as a thorough analysis of Bible Versions is entitled “Which Version is The Bible”. It is written by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones-Global Evangelism, Inc. is the publisher. This book can be downloaded for free online. Dr. Jones has this to say about Erasmus:

[b]ERASMUS RESTORES THE RECEIVED TEXT (GREEK)[/b]

[b]The Greek upon which the King James translation was based was first printed in A.D. 1516 at Basle, Switzerland, under the editorship of the famous Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus.As a Scholar, Erasmus was without peer – the intellectual giant of Europe in his day. Erasmus was ever at work, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing, writing and publishing. Europe was rocked by his works which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, and the general bigotry and wickedness within the Roman church.

He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the "Fathers" (letters etc. written by the early Church pastors which taken as a whole contain almost the entire New Testament).[/b] Today, many who deprecate the pure teachings of the Received Text sneer at Erasmus and pervert the facts in order to belittle his work. All this by men who could never have intellectually tied Erasmus' boot straps. While he lived, Europe was at his feet. [b]Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price! The Emperor of Germany likewise. Indeed, the Pope offered him the position of Cardinal. Erasmus resolutely declined not being willing to compromise his beliefs or conscience. France and Spain beckoned him to their realm while Holland proudly claimed him as her most distinguished son.

Book after book came from his labors. The demand for them was overwhelming. His crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last, after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed in its original tongue (A.D.1516). Astonished and confounded, Europe – the intellectual, civilized cradle of the world – deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospel.[/b]

In a letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter Barbirius, Erasmus wrote:

"I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them."
(Edward Lee afterwards became Archbishop of York)
[b]Consider and reflect upon this – the foremost scholar in the entire civilized world said the work was his "best". Such men have both egos and detractors. Erasmus would never have put his name on an undertaking which would have left him exposed and defenseless before his enemies and critics.[/b]

When Erasmus came to Basle in A.D. 1515 for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek New Testament, he had only five Greek cursive minuscules of the New Testament at his disposal. For the most part, he utilized a 15th century manuscript for the Gospels but used an 11th or 12th century manuscript on occasion. He used a 12th or 13th century manuscript for the Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus had a 15th century manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles which he also used occasionally, and he had a 12th century manuscript of Revelation. The last six verses of the Revelation manuscript were missing so he used the Latin Vulgate version to complete the chapter.

[b][color=CC0000]Erasmus' Greek New Testament has been often criticized on the grounds that he had so little data at his command from which to draw and that they were "late" copies. However, Erasmus did not go to the task unprepared. Although he had only five late minuscules, he had already translated a Latin New Testament and in preparation for this labor had collected and gathered variant readings from many Greek manuscripts. He journeyed all over Europe to libraries and to anyone from whom he could gather readings from manuscripts. Erasmus organized his findings and made notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts and Erasmus divided them into two camps, i.e., those he considered spurious and those he deemed genuine and trustworthy. The spurious group was a small percentage of the whole and mainly agreed with the Latin Vulgate readings. Of the several hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text.[/color][/b]

[u][i][b][color=CC0000]Naturalistic critics think that the presence and availability for Erasmus' use of these five Basle minuscules was merely an unhappy accident. But these men do not reckon sufficiently with the providence of God – that God has promised to overlook His Word. The text which Erasmus published was really not his own. It was taken virtually without change from these few manuscripts which God providentially placed at his disposal.The text contained in these manuscripts eventually came to be known as the "Textus Receptus" (the Received Text).[/color][/b][/i][/u]
[b]To emphasize and demonstrate the above, we quote the late Herman C. Hoskier. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. His conclusion, based upon the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, was:
"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better ... " [/b]

As Moorman relates, this is truly a powerful example of God's guiding providence in preserving the true text though but one late mss containing the Revelation was available to Erasmus at Basle.

[b]ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCED[/b]

[b][color=CC0000]Erasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known to scholars today – more than 470 years ago. This may be proven from a perusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:
"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." [/color][/b]
In producing his first edition, Erasmus was under an incredible work load. Due to publication problems and deadline pressure, his first edition had many typographical errors, misprints, and misspellings. This led to much undue criticism. His work was greatly disfigured only in the sense mentioned, but the Text was providentially protected. God has not preserved the Text miraculously for then there would have been no such glosses, and all the various uncials and cursives would read the same, word for word. In the case of providential guidance, we can see that there is a human as well as a divine side to the preservation of the Text. For the most part, these errors were eliminated by Erasmus in his later editions. Such things as these are, however, not factors which need to be taken into account insofar as evaluating the "Textus Receptus" – a designation by which his work later came to be known.

[b]The year after Erasmus published, Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, brought about the Reformation.
Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. One of the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's conviction that the Roman church was incapable of being reformed and he thought that Erasmus should join him in leaving. However Erasmus believed that he could better bring about reform by working from within the system. He was quite wrong.[/b]

Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission.

Erasmus was eventually Excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, eight years after his death.

Sincerely,

Walter

MMia wrote:
To answer the question, you have to know that there was the Recieved text and the Approved text. Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale were each translating from the greek and hebrew, around 1520 A.D., but the difference is that Erasmus was using the recieved and Tyndale the approved. Also, Tyndale translated directly from the original greek and hebrew, something Erasmus didn't. To add to the mix, Erasmus was also a humanist and put writing by Plato and other philosophers on the same level as the N.T. writers. It was from Tyndale that the KJV came into being. Therefore, in aswer to the orginal question, no, there was no KJV (the name King James should give a clue) before 400A.D. Hope this answers your question... :-)

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

[b]Erasmus was a Dutchman by birth. He was born at a time in history when everyone was forced to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church. As time went on, he did not dissociate himself from it, but thought that he would be able to change it. That never happened. There seems to be some contempt in your post about Erasmus being a humanist.[/b]

The English language is a living language, because the meaning and use of words change over time. However, in earlier centuries this change in meaning took centuries to accomplish. Today, with high speed travel to every part of the earth, the meaning of our words change quite rapidly.

A humanist at the time that Erasmus lived was a person who believed in God. Today, humanists and humanism have no use for God, and are mostly God haters or atheists.

If we go back in time, the Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, we find what [b]Humanist meant then:[/b]

HU'MANIST, n. A professor of grammar and rhetoric; a philologist; a term used in the universities of Scotland.
1. One versed in the knowledge of human nature.

Our next question then has to be, what is the definition of a “philology”?

We go to the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary again and find this:

PHILOL'OGY, n. [Gr. to love, a word.]
1. Primarily, a love of words, or a desire to know the origin and construction of language. In a more general sense,
2. That branch of literature which comprehends a knowledge of the etymology or origin and combination of words; grammar, the construction of sentences or use of words in language; criticism, the interpretation of authors, the affinities of different languages, and whatever relates to the history or present state of languages. It sometimes includes rhetoric, poetry, history and antiquities

Next, we look under the word Philologist and find:

PHILOL'OGIST, n. One versed in the history and construction of language. Philologist is generally used.

[b]Now, let’s compare the meaning for humanism in Erasmus time (Above) to what it has changed to today, found on the internet:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanist
Main Entry:
hu•man•ism
Pronunciation:
\\ˈhyü-mə-ˌni-zəm, ˈyü-\\
Function:
noun
Date:
1832
1 a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance 2: HUMANITARIANISM 3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values ; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
— hu•man•ist \\-nist\\ noun or adjective
— hu•man•is•tic \\ˌhyü-mə-ˈnis-tik, ˌyü-\\ adjective
— hu•man•is•ti•cal•ly \\-ti-klē\\ adverb A PHILO[/b]

xxxxx

[b]So today, the word humanist has devolved into someone who has a “individualistic and critical spirit”, with a doctrine, attitude or way of life centered on human interests or values, ESPECIALLY A PHILOSOPHY THAT USUALY REJECTS SUPERNATURALISM (GOD) AND STRESSES AN INDIVIDUALS DIGNITY AND WORTH AND CAPACITY FOR SELF-REALIZATION THROUGH REASON.[/b]

[b]Erasmus is the opposite of the current definition of a humanist. He was a dedicated man of God, who was one of the most brilliant and intelligent men of the 15th century. With his love and deep understanding of words and of the origin and construction of language, as well as his further comprehension and knowledge of the etymology or origin and combination of words, and grammar, as well as an interest in the affinities of different languages, and whatever relates to the history or present state of languages, he was well suited for his work of of restoring the true Word of God, Received Text, the Textus Receptus, to Protestant Christian Believers. The text that fueled the Reformation, that fueled the greatest outreach to the lost, ever.The Text fueled true Revivial, that fueled brokenness, that fueled death to self. [/b]

This is from the Book “Which Version is the Bible” by Floyd Nolen Jones that addresses this issue:

[b][color=CC0000]AN ASSESSMENT OF ERASMUS [/color][/b]
[b]Erasmus was a "Christian" humanist, the illegitimate son of a Roman Catholic priest, and was himself an ordained priest. He taught Greek at Cambridge University from A.D. 1510 to 1514. He was not a "great" man of faith – but he was completely committed to the truth and reality of the Christian faith. Moreover, compared to Westcott and Hort (and a few others to be mentioned later) Erasmus was a giant of faith in that he humbled himself and his intellect, professing that the Bible was the absolute Word of God.
As to the criticism that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic – in his day, almost all of Christendom was Roman. He flourished before and at the onset of the Reformation. He did not oppose the teachings of the Roman Church, but he vehemently protested the abuses within the Church. Erasmus decried the emphasis on ritual as opposed to a simple godly life as wrong and believed that such could be corrected by placing into every man's hand the Bible in his own language. He did not want to do away with the ritual of Rome, but he wanted a genuine spirituality to accompany it. He disapproved of Protestantism, viewing it as an evil because of all the division it brought.
The Christian humanistic elements in Erasmus' thought were completely dissimilar from the contemporary connotation of "humanism", meaning instead "men eminent for human learning" – especially in relation to the revival of learning in literature and language (notably Latin and Greek). In his day the term "humanist" designated a member of a distinct 'international intellectual club' that was dedicated to studying the humanities or liberal arts. Due to his great erudition, depth of thought, elegance of style and biting irony, Desiderius Erasmus stood forth among these intellectuals as the unrivaled "prince of humanist". Erasmus' humanism found expression in his insistence to return to the original sources in order to uncover truth. Thus, his edition of the Greek N.T. was a natural manifestation of his Christian humanistic bent. By means of this text he hoped to see the Roman Church renewed from within.
As a Christian humanist, Erasmus was naturally not always consistently Christian in his thinking, nevertheless, we maintain that God providentially used Erasmus – much as God used Erasmus' contemporary Martin Luther even though Luther became bitterly anti-Semitic in his latter years. At least Erasmus was not untrue to his ordination vows as were Westcott and Hort. They neither believed nor held to the thirty nine articles of the Anglican church in which they had been ordained. They actually espoused the cause of Romanism and modernism.
Moreover, neither Erasmus' theology nor his being a Roman Catholic has anything whatsoever to do with his Greek text. In producing it, he merely followed the manuscripts which had been preserved by the usage within the Greek Orthodox Church. He knew the Vulgate was corrupt and his humanist values led him to believe that he was getting to the source of God's truth by turning to the manuscripts of the Greek Church.
One of Erasmus' greatest mistakes was his belief that the Roman Catholic Church could be reformed from within. The Lord Jesus said that you cannot put new wine into old wine skins. If Jesus the Christ could not reform the religion of Israel which originally had been the only God-ordained religion on the earth, who are we to think we can change for the better the traditions of any denomination or religious organization? By the power of the Holy Spirit we can influence and cause a positive change in the hearts of individuals be they priests, preachers or laymen – but organizations – organizations are married to their doctrines and traditions![/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...

Are you trying to say that Erasmus was NOT a Dutch Roman Catholic humanist?

Erasmus never "preferred the doctrines of Rome", he rejected them as spurious, and corrupt.

I have listed the book, and quoted the material. Did you actually read my post? Surely does not sound like you did if you cannot even find the references I posted.

You can download it online if you have any interest.

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi walter...

Where have you gathered your research about Erasmus? Where did you obtain your information?

The only reason I ask is because he played a crucial role in the Textus Receptus. He was a Dutch Roman Catholic/Humanist. From everything that I have ever read, he was an interesting individual (went against the flow) -- but he still managed to continually embrace the bulk of the doctrines of Rome.

By the way some websites spread libelous information about Wescott and Hort or some other modern linguistic scholars, you would think that they viewed Erasmus as a saint!

Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer. Yet I noticed that much of the argument is directed at those who helped in the translation effort -- rather than simply on the manuscripts themselves. But, ironically, this sort of scrutiny is almost never directed at Erasmus.

...just a few things to think about.

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

As I look at all of the previous threads on Sermonindex in regards to Bible versions, I find the following statement of yours, similar to this one, that appears quite often:

“Of course, I still prefer my KJV of the Word of God. I understand and acknowledge the arguments made in favor of the supremacy of the KJV's source material. However, I also understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer.” ccchhhrrriiisss

So what you are saying above is two fold. You have a position that consists of:

#1 your prefer the King James Bible as the Word of God and also understand and acknowledge the arguments in favor of the supremacy of the King James Versions source material

#2 However, you say that you understand the arguments in favor of some of the other texts that most Bible scholars and manuscript experts prefer them.

[b]What I notice on every one of the threads on Sermonindex in regards to Bible Versions is that you are the leader of the pack in the attack against the King James---- in defense of the newer versions, usually your post occurs first to respond in attack mode, followed then by kingjimmy, and then a few others, yet always the same pattern. [/b]

[b][color=CC0000]The Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation agrees 100% with your #1 position above. It totally accepts the King James Bible as the Received Text, received from the true Church, the very WORD of GOD.[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]However, at the same time The Protestant Church of the Reformation REJECTS your position #2 above--- vehemently, accusing those on the “revision committee” (Westcott & Hort) of plagiarism and changing the Doctrine.[/color][/b]

[b][color=0000CC]This is what HISTORY has to say about the matter. History, the SMOKING GUN, directly from the Protestant body of Christ responding to the work of Westcott and Hort and their revision committee in their "revised New Testament" in February, 1881.

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

([i]Moderator: See follow up's for link[/i])

What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" (it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900's, when it started to get a little support by the Liberal’s in the body of Christ. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line in the 1881 New York Times reads as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808".

Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James, just like Conservative Protestant Christians do today when comparing the King James Bible to all of the newer versions. In this article, they actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical (plagiarism) on a verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html

The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).

What none of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revision by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort had switched the Authorized version of the New Testament and with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used to create the Catholic Bible. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnosticism! [/color][/b]
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b][color=0066FF]So cccchhhrrriiisss, you have a dilemma, you have a problem. You cannot play both sides of the issue. Your two positions are in opposition to each other, and only one position is and can be true, because they are actually "opposites" of each other. A good example of someone who holds a similar dilemma to you would be a person who held the following “position”:

#1 I believe in the right to life, from conception to the natural end of life, from the womb to the tomb.

#2 However, I have also studied the other side of the issue, and I also believe in Abortion and Euthanasia, in late term abortion and assisted suicide, from the womb to the tomb.

This person is on the same quick sand that you are in. They think they hold one position. In reality they hold two opposite positions, yet try to make them one.

Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

The Protestant Body of Christ rejected the newer versions in 1881 as being corrupt and inferior to Word of God found in the Received Text, in the Textus Receptus. You have to choose, it is either one of the other.[/color][/b] [color=000000][b]The 1881 Corrupt, inferior version created by Westcott & Hort and the "Revision Committee" that has SPAWNED all of the newer Bible Versions since 1881-- the American Standard, Revised Standard, International Standard Version, the NIV, The NASV, The Message, etc. etc. etc.- ALL OF THE NEWER VERSIONS![/color][/b] [b][color=0066FF]One road leads directly from the early Apostles and early Church, though the dead language of Koine Greek, and is 95% consistent. The other leads directly from the Gnostics, the first Textural Critics, who cut and pasted God’s Word to conform to their own beliefs, that came from Alexandria Egypt and ended up in Rome. This is where all of the error is found, with no consistency at all. One is the Word of God, that came from the true Church, the other is the word of men, that came from the Gnostics, and was accepted by Rome. Nothing good comes out of Rome.

You must choose this day whom you will serve. Is it God or is it Mammon? What will it be?

"24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Matthew 6:24[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:

waltern wrote:
Erasmus never "preferred the doctrines of Rome", he rejected them as spurious, and corrupt.

Really? Where do you get this? I know that he was outspoken about certain things, yet he remained a Roman Catholic until the end of his life. So which things did he reject? You make it sound like he rejected them ALL, yet he remained a follower of Rome.

I have listed the book, and quoted the material. Did you actually read my post? Surely does not sound like you did if you cannot even find the references I posted.

Yes, I did read your post. The book that you listed is NOT a detailed account of Erasmus. You must have a lot of faith in the author's words to accept his words without verification. Have you verified his sources? There are many works written about the life of Erasmus with detailed citations from his own writings. If we are so willing to scrutinize Wescott and Hort, can't we return the favor to Erasmus? Yet many KJV-only fans are quick to criticize modern translators without performing the same sort of personal scrutiny to the translators of the KJV...or even Erasmus.

Of course, this doesn't diminish the work that Erasmus created. But there are those amongst us who are almost willing to pass off Erasmus' work as though it was entirely perfect in every way. He was a man...flawed like the rest of us. His background has raised flags (particularly in regard to humanism and Roman Catholicism). Still, it seems like people are quick to vilify some modern translators but refuse to use that same measuring stick to those that support their translation of choice.

Not trying to be contentious here; just wanting to clarify the Erasmus claims.