Mr Bennett's view on the Mass is expounded in this article:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/The_Cross_and_the_Mass.pdf
I can give no better refutation than what can be accomplished by pointing you to works which manifestly destroy Mr Bennett's position on this issue. Mr Bennett doesn't consider Scripture as a whole in his exegesis of the parts he discusses. When you put the Last Supper in it's proper context, (Passover and the rest of salvation history and understand it as the Jews did) you can see that Christ does indeed miraculously change the bread and wine into His body and blood.
Eucharist, Holy Meal:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Bible and the Mass:
This article demonstrates how the Mass is straight from Scripture...
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/the_lambs_supper_the_bible_and_the_mass
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
King James Version Only? (KJV-, KJB-Only?)
First of all, I like the KJB (and the Douay-Rheims Bible), because of the language. Once I learned how to understand the "archaic" English phrases, it seems to convey meaning better. For example, "thou" and "ye". They're the same except "thou" and "thee" are singular (referring to one person) and "ye" and "you" are plural (referring to all in a group). This is an important distinction. For example, Jesus said to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys" Mattt16:19. Only Peter got the keys. But, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" Matt 18:18. Here, all the apostles received the authority to forgive sins and reconcile sinners with the Church. Modern English versions have "you" in both places. While it's true that considering the context can determine the singularity or plurality of "you", I find that understanding comes more readily, and there is less misunderstanding, when thou and ye are used.
The KJV-Only folks referred me to this book Which Version Is the Bible? to provide evidence supporting the KJV as THE Bible in English (by which they mean it is the only infallible English bible), so I read it and here's my review. (But don't trust me, read it yourself and research my assertions. Follow up all references given by authors (if they don't give references, don't trust them). References I've used are at the end of this article.)
Which Version Is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones.
My notes are below. To summarize my conclusions: These translation differences are not so bad as Dr Jones is saying. The interpretation problems which might result from the "bad" translations he compares are negated by proper Scriptural exegesis (ie consider all of Scripture when interpreting any small part of Scripture), even in the paradigm of Sola-Scriptura. In the paradigm of Catholicism, Dr Jones' fears are totally invalid because the teaching authority of the Apostolic successors would prevent faulty interpretation.
"To The Reader - The Sounding of an Alarm"
In Isaiah 14 the primary use of "heosphoros" (literally "light bearer", variously translated as "Lucifer" or "morning" or "day star") is as metaphor, applied to the King of Babylon as preeminent among the princes of his time. Isaiah 13 helps set this context. The secondary meaning of Isaiah 14 can be applying it to Satan. Dr Jones seems to think it can be fatal to the faith if "Lucifer" is not tied to Satan in this verse, but even without using the word "Lucifer", we can still apply this passage to Satan, when guided by the Church's teaching.
Dr Jones takes issue with translations not using "Lucifer". But "lucifer" is not primarily a name, instead it's a description, "light bearer" or "bringer of light" or "shining one". It has become a name for Satan over time. Being Latin, why insist that "Lucifer" to be only valid translation to the English, since the Vulgate was considered a "corrupt" translation? But it didn't come from the Greek, it came from the Hebrew.
"lucifer" was used by Jerome in the Vulgate in several places besides Isaiah 14 (see Lucifer in Catholic Encyclopedia).
Latin Lucifer ~ Greek heosphoros ἑωσφόρος ~ Hebrew helel
Strong's H1984 definition of "halal"
make boast self, celebrate, commend, deal, make, foolish glory, give light, be make, A primitive root; to be clear (orig. Of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify -- (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.
heosphoros found in these places:
ἑωσφόρος in Job 11:17; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρου in Psalm 110:3; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρος in Isaiah 14:12; KJV "Lucifer"; D-RV "Lucifer"; RSV "day star"; NIV "morning star"
Section "A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS "
This section is generally reasonable.
Dr Jones states "Before accepting the conclusions of a particular textual critic, one should evaluate
both his theological presuppositions and criteria." This is sound advice. This concept means we are all guided by a certain tradition of interpretation (whether we admit it or not). Catholics are quick to admit they follow a certain tradition, which they call "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition" (meaning it's a tradition guided by the Spirit).
Section PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Dr Jones submits that in OT days the Levitical priesthood was responsible for copying and thus preserving the "Living Words of God" infallibly. This makes sense so far. But he declares that the Masoretic Text (the oldest example being from c900 AD) is the true text because it is from the Levites, whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls (more than a thousand years older) are from the Essenes (non-Levites) and therefore can't be the true text. The problem with his logic is that since Christ came and transferred the priesthood to all believers (except the pastoral, ministerial aspect) the Levitical priesthood is obsolete. So, when the Jewish Levites after Christ copied Scripture they would not have necessarily been guided infallibly. Therefore, the Masoretic Text cannot be counted on to be pure (which Dr Jones counts on). Dr Jones then declares the Septuagint (LXX) to be spurious because of the differences compared to the Masoretic Text "As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected.". He further states "We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original." It's interesting he says this because this is my conclusion concerning the Masoretic Text because the age of the earliest example means almost a thousand years since the last legitimate priest copied it. I wouldn't hold the Masoretic Text to be the pure one, as far as his logic is concerned.
Dr Jones next informs us of the care and dedication of the "early Christians" who copied the Scriptures. He fails to mention that these men were Catholic monks and priests and brothers.
He quotes 2Cor 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ". He says this indicates that there was trouble with the purity of the Bible text. But I don't think Paul was talking about ink on paper, but instead the teachings of God which Paul preached.
Dr Jones always treats the phrase "the word of God" to mean ink on paper. That seems erroneous to me. Scripture never says the word of God is limited to the written form.
[Sola Scriptura-based ramblings]...
"The real issue here is that of authority." He's absolutely right. He says scholars and teachers and the pope or the head of one's denomination get in between the layman and God. In the paradigm of Sola Scriptura, this might be true. But, in the paradigm of Christ establishing His Church to be the primary means to spread and protect His teachings, these scholars and teachers and pope are instead enablers of our deeper understanding of Scripture.
Since we don't have the original MSS God must have either: a) in Sola-Scriptura-World, God ensured infallible reproduction of the written word or b) in Authoritative-Church-World God ensured the infallible transmission of the teachings via Scripture and Tradition. Scripture translations and interpretations would be guided by Tradition. The authoritative body would be infallible in these matters and the written Word would be protected from serious flaws by it. In the case of a), the Christian should find out if he has THE correct translation in his language. He then has to depend on others to give him information he'll use to decide this. He will thus be accepting something non-Scripture to tell him what is Scripture. (It seems to me Sola Scriptura is illogical for this reason.) In the case of b), the Christian can rest assured that they are getting God's Word, even if there were NO bibles in the world, through the teaching authority Christ established.
BIBLICAL COMPARISONS
Dr Jones presents numerous verse comparisons and bemoans the "danger" of the non-KJ translations. But the different translations do not really have such severe theological implications as he says or implies. In Sola-Scriptura-World there is a chance he might be right, but in Authoritative-Church-World he is definitely wrong because the successors to the Apostles lead us in the correct interpretations.
[Here's a great parallel NT site: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm
showing several Greek, Latin, and several English translations.]
[TR = Textus Receptus BM=Byzantine Majority]
He compares three "modern" translations. He doesn't examine the Douay-Reims Version (D-RV), which is extremely similar to the KJV.
Col 1:14
Even though "through his blood" is missing in the "other" translations, this is does not have a serious doctrinal impact because there's plenty of other Scripture telling us that the blood of Jesus spilt is what saves us. Without that sacrifice our sins would not be paid for.
D-RV agrees with KJV, despite the Alexandrian text differing from the TR and BM.
1Tim 3:16
Where KJV has "God was" and the other protestant English bible have "He who was", the D-RV has "which was". This seems to correspond to the Alexandrian text, where the TR and BM have "God was". Despite this difference the D-RV is interpreted identically with the KJV which is to say God became man, etc.
Isaiah 7:14
Matt 1:25
He takes Matt 1:25 to mean Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. He doesn't consider that "firstborn" is more a title than a description, in the Jewish culture. The firstborn son is consecrated to God (Ex 13:2) and is the default heir to the father's wealth and status. Jesus is the "firstborn" of God the Father, as well as of Mary and Joseph. The phrase "till" here does not mean "not before the birth of the firstborn and then she had sex". It means up to that time and forevermore. Another example: "Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are the same.
Matt 4:10.
Dr Jones' issue here has to do with translating the greek word for worship. He doesn't like the translations to use "bowing down" for "worshipping". I'm no linguistic expert, but I agree here in that this is related to Catholic honoring of saintly statues and relics. A Catholic might be kneeling, or even bowing, in front of a statue of Mary while seeking her intercession but this isn't worship. It is paying respect and honor, but not adoration. (In Japanese culture people bow to eachother. They're not worshipping eachother, they are paying respect.)
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian and TR are the same, where the Byzantine Majority is a little different.
Matt6:13.
"For Thine is the kingdom...": This is not originally Scripture but part of the liturgy, basically present in the Didache. More:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/quaeritur-why-is-the-protestant-for-the-kingdom-the-power-the-glory-in-our-catholic-mass/
Translation Differences: D-RV differs with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are all the same.
Dr Jones says the RCC omits this because it contradicts her teaching that the millenial reign is figurative (not literal 1000 years on earth). Dr Jones then misrepresents what the RCC teaches on this. The RCC teaches that the millienial Kingdom began when Jesus was enthroned in Heaven. (Not because "the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead"). It is the Church Age. The RCC doesn't teach that all people will be converted. (But they would if they accepted Jesus). The Church is indeed the New Israel. It is the New Covenant transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant people of God, Israel. National Israel is no longer His chosen people. Christians, forming His Church, are. Israel was God's Firstborn Son (Exodus). Like so many other Firstborn Sons who lost their inheritance (ie Esau), Israel gave up it's birthright, by rejecting the Savior whom God sent.
Matt 19:17.
D-RV says "17 Who said to him: Why do you ask me concerning good? One is good, God. But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments."
Either translation makes sense when you look at the question He was answering: " Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?"
Mark 1:2-3.
There's no doctrinal misunderstanding here. Knowledge of OT, and guidance of the Church, would negate any misinterpretation which Dr Jones fears.
Mark 9:43-44
D-RV is same as KJV. Verse 44 is not present in Alexandrian Text. Vulgate has it.
Origen:
typical allegations against him... further research is warranted...
-source of the adulteration of Holy Writ (ie Hexapla)
-castrated himself(?) and went barefoot for heavenly rewards
-didn't believe in divinity of Jesus (gnostic?)
Dr Jones cites Hislop's The Two Babylons in describing the supposed pagan roots of Catholic ritualism and traditions. But Hislop's book has been shown to be vastly erroneous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
=========================
Other References & Links to related information:
A Baptist Minister's view on the issue:
http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/booklets/kjv.html
Tyndale & English Bibles...http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm
KJV, "Pure Cambridge Edition", self-professed to be the ONLY correct edition of THE Bible in English (KJV-Onlyists say "KJV is THE Bible in English", even within the KJV-Only camp there is division).
(This guy is so zealous for KJV-PCE that he burns other versions he isn't happy with, on the basis that they defile the Word of God.) Nevertheless, this online bible is very handy.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm
Wikipedia article on KJV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#CITEREFDaniell2003
A Catholic Parallel Bible (Greek/English/Latin):
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
Parallel Old Testament (Hebrew/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/
Parallel New Testament (Multiple Greek/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/
The KJV-Only folks referred me to this book Which Version Is the Bible? to provide evidence supporting the KJV as THE Bible in English (by which they mean it is the only infallible English bible), so I read it and here's my review. (But don't trust me, read it yourself and research my assertions. Follow up all references given by authors (if they don't give references, don't trust them). References I've used are at the end of this article.)
Which Version Is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones.
My notes are below. To summarize my conclusions: These translation differences are not so bad as Dr Jones is saying. The interpretation problems which might result from the "bad" translations he compares are negated by proper Scriptural exegesis (ie consider all of Scripture when interpreting any small part of Scripture), even in the paradigm of Sola-Scriptura. In the paradigm of Catholicism, Dr Jones' fears are totally invalid because the teaching authority of the Apostolic successors would prevent faulty interpretation.
"To The Reader - The Sounding of an Alarm"
In Isaiah 14 the primary use of "heosphoros" (literally "light bearer", variously translated as "Lucifer" or "morning" or "day star") is as metaphor, applied to the King of Babylon as preeminent among the princes of his time. Isaiah 13 helps set this context. The secondary meaning of Isaiah 14 can be applying it to Satan. Dr Jones seems to think it can be fatal to the faith if "Lucifer" is not tied to Satan in this verse, but even without using the word "Lucifer", we can still apply this passage to Satan, when guided by the Church's teaching.
Dr Jones takes issue with translations not using "Lucifer". But "lucifer" is not primarily a name, instead it's a description, "light bearer" or "bringer of light" or "shining one". It has become a name for Satan over time. Being Latin, why insist that "Lucifer" to be only valid translation to the English, since the Vulgate was considered a "corrupt" translation? But it didn't come from the Greek, it came from the Hebrew.
"lucifer" was used by Jerome in the Vulgate in several places besides Isaiah 14 (see Lucifer in Catholic Encyclopedia).
Latin Lucifer ~ Greek heosphoros ἑωσφόρος ~ Hebrew helel
Strong's H1984 definition of "halal"
make boast self, celebrate, commend, deal, make, foolish glory, give light, be make, A primitive root; to be clear (orig. Of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify -- (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.
heosphoros found in these places:
ἑωσφόρος in Job 11:17; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρου in Psalm 110:3; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρος in Isaiah 14:12; KJV "Lucifer"; D-RV "Lucifer"; RSV "day star"; NIV "morning star"
Section "A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS "
This section is generally reasonable.
Dr Jones states "Before accepting the conclusions of a particular textual critic, one should evaluate
both his theological presuppositions and criteria." This is sound advice. This concept means we are all guided by a certain tradition of interpretation (whether we admit it or not). Catholics are quick to admit they follow a certain tradition, which they call "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition" (meaning it's a tradition guided by the Spirit).
Section PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Dr Jones submits that in OT days the Levitical priesthood was responsible for copying and thus preserving the "Living Words of God" infallibly. This makes sense so far. But he declares that the Masoretic Text (the oldest example being from c900 AD) is the true text because it is from the Levites, whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls (more than a thousand years older) are from the Essenes (non-Levites) and therefore can't be the true text. The problem with his logic is that since Christ came and transferred the priesthood to all believers (except the pastoral, ministerial aspect) the Levitical priesthood is obsolete. So, when the Jewish Levites after Christ copied Scripture they would not have necessarily been guided infallibly. Therefore, the Masoretic Text cannot be counted on to be pure (which Dr Jones counts on). Dr Jones then declares the Septuagint (LXX) to be spurious because of the differences compared to the Masoretic Text "As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected.". He further states "We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original." It's interesting he says this because this is my conclusion concerning the Masoretic Text because the age of the earliest example means almost a thousand years since the last legitimate priest copied it. I wouldn't hold the Masoretic Text to be the pure one, as far as his logic is concerned.
Dr Jones next informs us of the care and dedication of the "early Christians" who copied the Scriptures. He fails to mention that these men were Catholic monks and priests and brothers.
He quotes 2Cor 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ". He says this indicates that there was trouble with the purity of the Bible text. But I don't think Paul was talking about ink on paper, but instead the teachings of God which Paul preached.
Dr Jones always treats the phrase "the word of God" to mean ink on paper. That seems erroneous to me. Scripture never says the word of God is limited to the written form.
[Sola Scriptura-based ramblings]...
"The real issue here is that of authority." He's absolutely right. He says scholars and teachers and the pope or the head of one's denomination get in between the layman and God. In the paradigm of Sola Scriptura, this might be true. But, in the paradigm of Christ establishing His Church to be the primary means to spread and protect His teachings, these scholars and teachers and pope are instead enablers of our deeper understanding of Scripture.
Since we don't have the original MSS God must have either: a) in Sola-Scriptura-World, God ensured infallible reproduction of the written word or b) in Authoritative-Church-World God ensured the infallible transmission of the teachings via Scripture and Tradition. Scripture translations and interpretations would be guided by Tradition. The authoritative body would be infallible in these matters and the written Word would be protected from serious flaws by it. In the case of a), the Christian should find out if he has THE correct translation in his language. He then has to depend on others to give him information he'll use to decide this. He will thus be accepting something non-Scripture to tell him what is Scripture. (It seems to me Sola Scriptura is illogical for this reason.) In the case of b), the Christian can rest assured that they are getting God's Word, even if there were NO bibles in the world, through the teaching authority Christ established.
BIBLICAL COMPARISONS
Dr Jones presents numerous verse comparisons and bemoans the "danger" of the non-KJ translations. But the different translations do not really have such severe theological implications as he says or implies. In Sola-Scriptura-World there is a chance he might be right, but in Authoritative-Church-World he is definitely wrong because the successors to the Apostles lead us in the correct interpretations.
[Here's a great parallel NT site: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm
showing several Greek, Latin, and several English translations.]
[TR = Textus Receptus BM=Byzantine Majority]
He compares three "modern" translations. He doesn't examine the Douay-Reims Version (D-RV), which is extremely similar to the KJV.
Col 1:14
Even though "through his blood" is missing in the "other" translations, this is does not have a serious doctrinal impact because there's plenty of other Scripture telling us that the blood of Jesus spilt is what saves us. Without that sacrifice our sins would not be paid for.
D-RV agrees with KJV, despite the Alexandrian text differing from the TR and BM.
1Tim 3:16
Where KJV has "God was" and the other protestant English bible have "He who was", the D-RV has "which was". This seems to correspond to the Alexandrian text, where the TR and BM have "God was". Despite this difference the D-RV is interpreted identically with the KJV which is to say God became man, etc.
Isaiah 7:14
Matt 1:25
He takes Matt 1:25 to mean Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. He doesn't consider that "firstborn" is more a title than a description, in the Jewish culture. The firstborn son is consecrated to God (Ex 13:2) and is the default heir to the father's wealth and status. Jesus is the "firstborn" of God the Father, as well as of Mary and Joseph. The phrase "till" here does not mean "not before the birth of the firstborn and then she had sex". It means up to that time and forevermore. Another example: "Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are the same.
Matt 4:10.
Dr Jones' issue here has to do with translating the greek word for worship. He doesn't like the translations to use "bowing down" for "worshipping". I'm no linguistic expert, but I agree here in that this is related to Catholic honoring of saintly statues and relics. A Catholic might be kneeling, or even bowing, in front of a statue of Mary while seeking her intercession but this isn't worship. It is paying respect and honor, but not adoration. (In Japanese culture people bow to eachother. They're not worshipping eachother, they are paying respect.)
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian and TR are the same, where the Byzantine Majority is a little different.
Matt6:13.
"For Thine is the kingdom...": This is not originally Scripture but part of the liturgy, basically present in the Didache. More:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/quaeritur-why-is-the-protestant-for-the-kingdom-the-power-the-glory-in-our-catholic-mass/
Translation Differences: D-RV differs with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are all the same.
Dr Jones says the RCC omits this because it contradicts her teaching that the millenial reign is figurative (not literal 1000 years on earth). Dr Jones then misrepresents what the RCC teaches on this. The RCC teaches that the millienial Kingdom began when Jesus was enthroned in Heaven. (Not because "the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead"). It is the Church Age. The RCC doesn't teach that all people will be converted. (But they would if they accepted Jesus). The Church is indeed the New Israel. It is the New Covenant transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant people of God, Israel. National Israel is no longer His chosen people. Christians, forming His Church, are. Israel was God's Firstborn Son (Exodus). Like so many other Firstborn Sons who lost their inheritance (ie Esau), Israel gave up it's birthright, by rejecting the Savior whom God sent.
Matt 19:17.
D-RV says "17 Who said to him: Why do you ask me concerning good? One is good, God. But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments."
Either translation makes sense when you look at the question He was answering: " Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?"
Mark 1:2-3.
There's no doctrinal misunderstanding here. Knowledge of OT, and guidance of the Church, would negate any misinterpretation which Dr Jones fears.
Mark 9:43-44
D-RV is same as KJV. Verse 44 is not present in Alexandrian Text. Vulgate has it.
Origen:
typical allegations against him... further research is warranted...
-source of the adulteration of Holy Writ (ie Hexapla)
-castrated himself(?) and went barefoot for heavenly rewards
-didn't believe in divinity of Jesus (gnostic?)
Dr Jones cites Hislop's The Two Babylons in describing the supposed pagan roots of Catholic ritualism and traditions. But Hislop's book has been shown to be vastly erroneous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
=========================
Other References & Links to related information:
A Baptist Minister's view on the issue:
http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/booklets/kjv.html
Tyndale & English Bibles...http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm
KJV, "Pure Cambridge Edition", self-professed to be the ONLY correct edition of THE Bible in English (KJV-Onlyists say "KJV is THE Bible in English", even within the KJV-Only camp there is division).
(This guy is so zealous for KJV-PCE that he burns other versions he isn't happy with, on the basis that they defile the Word of God.) Nevertheless, this online bible is very handy.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm
Wikipedia article on KJV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#CITEREFDaniell2003
A Catholic Parallel Bible (Greek/English/Latin):
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
Parallel Old Testament (Hebrew/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/
Parallel New Testament (Multiple Greek/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)