Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale Riplinger is also inconsistent in attacking James Price for working on two translations

From two totally different competing Greek texts, irreconcilable. In fact, many translators who worked on the NKJV actually believed that the underlying text is a corrupt text .. but hey, its a scholarship gig, some $, some position, some laurels. The word of God ? That is not the issue, when there is a gig at stake.

James Price -
"'I am not a TR advocate"

"James Price .. explained that since the title was New King James, it was decided to keep all the verses that the AV
(KJV) had orignally" - Kevin Woodruff - b-greek forum

James Price explaining the Westcott-Hort modern version mentality (emphasis added)
"Their methodology works to restore the text to its pristine purity. As more evidence becomes available, and the methodology improves, the restored text becomes more and more free of uncertainty." - Review of 'Which Greek Text? - Charles Surrett

James Price even directly used the stock attacks on the King James Bible and the Textus receptus, as being based on
"a handful of late manuscripts" (!) (letter to David Cloud, where he also disengeneously placed the Reformation Bible usage in the KJB as their "textual decisions" -- as if any Reformation believers considered the corrupt modern version readings of significance.)

There is no doubt about his hypocrisy.

This, btw, is one of the reasons to avoid the NKJV, the simple fact that many translators had no heart and faith for the Bible text they were using, and that one purpose of the NKJV is to try to divert readers from the pure English Reformatation Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale when she praises Miles Coverdale who worked on three or four different English translations.

The only Greek text Coverdale translated from is the Reformation Bible text, the Textus Receptus.

The simple fact that in those times there were ongoing translations from the Latin text is not inconsistent at all, whether by Calvin, Coverdale, Erasmus or anyone. To try to make the 1500s situtation equate to 2000 shows how weird are the attempts of Rick to fabricate errors.

Now if Gail Riplinger makes some errors, then it is perfectly proper to point them out, however this kind of fabrication of "inconsistency" shows that Rick is simply playing games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale Riplinger wrote: "Miles Coverdale was the editor of one of the early English Bibles; the words of the Coverdale Bible are still seen in todlay's KJB, particularly in the Old Testament. He was intimately involved in the process of the Bible's being 'given' (2 Tim. 3:16) and 'purified' (Ps. 12:6, 7) in English" (Hazardous Materials, p. 1165).

100% accurate.

================================================== ==================

Oh .. try to find out if Rick Norris agrees with the James Price attacks on the Reformation Bible !
Or whether that is of no concern to Rick.

Does Rick defend the pure Greek text against such attacks as those of James Price, who favors the ultra-corrupt critical text ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

However, you are ignoring the fact that Miles Coverdale also translated the Latin Vulgate of his day into English in his 1538 Latin-English New Testament. KJV-only advocates placed the Latin Vulgate of that day on the same bad line of Bibles where they place the Westcott-Hort Greek text.

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale you are ignoring the fact that Miles Coverdale also translated the Latin Vulgate of his day into English in his 1538 Latin-English New Testament.

No, I was specifically addressing his Latin to English translation, which was still common in the 1500s among Reformation believers. Once again, for you to equate that common translation from Latin (which aspect you yourself emphasize from Erasmus) to a 2000 situation is either ignorant or deceptive. The historical and cultural and language and Bible text understanding were all radically different than today, the excellent work of Erasmus and Tyndale in English was only beginning the Reformation of the Bible text -- leading later to the excellent Geneva and King James Bible English Bibles. Coverdale was a major contributor, yet there is no inconsistency if he did not see the languages and texts in exactly the same manner as our fuller post-Geneva and KJB view, and after the Vulgate had been fully discarded in place of the superior Reformation Bible.

Note: based on past experience, Rick Norris will not receive this -- simply because his probabilism mentality forces him to maintain even refuted and discredited accusations that he has published (examples abound). Thus Rick will simply smoke-screen in another way, so he can maintain the same false allegation in the days ahead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale KJV-only advocates placed the Latin Vulgate of that day on the same bad line of Bibles where they place the Westcott-Hort Greek text.

Actually the Vulgate is far superior to the Westcott-Hort text. This should be pointed out by King James Bible defenders, for a much more complete and balanced exposition. eg. the Vulgate does not have the abject corruption of (snipping) the ending of Mark. Dozens of examples could be offered, including, if I remember offhand, both Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses being in the vast majority of Vulgate manuscripts, in line with our preserved scripture. While these were also well represented in the Old Latin line, we should not hesitate to credit the Vulgate where it has maintained a beautiful and powerful Bible verse or section that dropped out of either the alexandrian corrupt manuscripts or a good segment of the Greek manuscripts in general.

While the Vulgate was ultimately defeated in the Battle of the Bible by the pure Reformation Bible text, the Vulgate remained a valid historical document, for many like Wycliffe the main Bible they had, and it is correct to say that the Latin lines, Old Latin and Vulgate, did contribute to Bible preservation. The ultra-corrupt texts are the counter-reformation westcott-hort, na, ubs, critical texts (all very close to one another, all with the same major corruptions). The ultra-pure texts are the Reformation Bibles. The Vulgate is in between.

=================================================

Oh .. try to find out if Rick Norris agrees with the James Price attacks on the Reformation Bible !
Or whether that is of no concern to Rick.

Does Rick defend the pure Greek text against such attacks as those of James Price, who favors the ultra-corrupt critical text ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

There are some examples of textual differences as found in Coverdale's 1538 Latin-English New Testament.

Some examples of additions in Coverdale’s Duoglott from the Latin Vulgate include the following: "in this city" (Acts 4:27), "and that they might all be delivered from their infirmities" (Acts 5:15), "the third day" (Acts 13:30c), "and all the multitude was moved at their doctrine" (Acts 14:7), "but Judas went alone to Jerusalem" (Acts 15:34c), "commanding to keep the precepts of the Apostles and elders" (Acts 15:41c), "setting forth in the mean while the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 18:4), "For he did fear lest happly the Jews should take him away and kill him, and he afterward should be blamed, as though he should take money" (Acts 23:24c), and "And they took me and cried, saying: away with our enemy" (Acts 24:17 or 18). Some other examples of additions are as follows: "according to the purpose of the grace of God" (Rom. 4:5c), "as the stars of heaven and sand of the sea" (Rom. 4:18c), "of the children of God" (Rom. 8:23), and "not only before God, but also" (Rom. 12:17). Another addition is found at 1 Peter 3:22 [“hath swallowed up death, that we might be made heirs of everlasting life”]. At the beginning of John 14, it has “And he said unto his disciples.“ After "grow" at 1 Peter 2:2, Coverdale's 1538 English translation adds "unto salvation."

Coverdale's 1538 Latin-English N. T. sometimes used the rendering "penance" (Matt. 3:2, 8, 11, 4:17, 11:20, 21, 12:41, Mark 1:4). It has "fruit of light" at Ephesians 5:9, "fear of Christ" at Ephesians 5:21, "knowledge your sins" at James 5:16, and "eagle" at Revelation 8:13.

Because omitted in the edition of the Latin translation of his day, Coverdale's 1538 English N. T. also omitted some phrases. For example, the words "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" are omitted at Romans 11:6. At Romans 14:6, the words "and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it" are not included. The 1538 Coverdale's also does not have the following words: “Jesus saith unto them” (Matt. 13:51), “wherein the Son of man cometh” (Matt. 25:13), "and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:20), and "From such withdraw thyself" (1 Tim. 6:5).

Do the majority of KJV-only advocates actually accept the Latin Vulgate as printed in the time of Coverdale as a standard acceptable translation to be used as a basis for making an English translation?

The facts from this 1538 translation by Miles Coverdale demonstrate the clear inconsistency in Riplinger's claims.

Riplinger wrote: "Miles Coverdale was the editor of one of the early English Bibles; the words of the Coverdale Bible are still seen in today's KJB, particularly in the Old Testament. He was intimately involved in the process of the Bible's being 'given' (2 Tim. 3:16) and 'purified' (Ps. 12:6, 7) in English" (Hazardous Materials, p. 1165).

The rendering "penance" can be found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20. In his prologue to his 1535 Bible, Coverdale wrote: "Be not thou offended therefore (good Reader) though one call a scribe, that another calleth a lawyer; or elders, that another calleth father & mother; or repentance, that another calleth penance or amendment." Can KJV-only advocates such as Gail Riplinger explain the Holy Spirit’s role in this rendering “penance” being in this earlier English Bible of which the KJV was a revision?

From the Latin Vulgate, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has the rendering "lamies" at Lamentations 4:3. From the influence of the Vulgate, Coverdale’s has “Alexandria” instead of “No” (Jer. 46:25). Instead of "mown grass" at Psalm 72:6, Coverdale's has "fleece of wool." At Psalm 28:8, Coverdale's has "strength of his people" in agreement with the LXX, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate while the KJV has only "strength." At Psalm 13:6, Coverdale's has a sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea, I will praise the name of the LORD the most highest." Coverdale's Bible has "upon me" after "call" at Psalm 20:9 that is not in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible adds "before him" after "rejoice" at Psalm 2:11.


Miles Coverdale was involved in the editing and making of the 1539 Great Bible. In his introduction to a reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade observed that at Psalm 29:1, "Great 1540 adds to 1535 the Vulgate 'Bring young rams unto the Lord,' which has Septuagint but not Hebrew authority" (p. 24). In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses which are not in the KJV. These three verses from the Latin Vulgate are also in the Douay-Rheims Bible [numbered Psalm 13 in Douay-Rheims]. The 1540 Great Bible added words found in the Septuagint at Psalm 17:9 [“to take away my soul”]. At the end of Psalm 33:10, the 1540 edition included this extra phrase: “and casteth out the counsels of princes.“ The 1540 Great Bible added at the end of Psalm 111 the following: “Praise the Lord for the returning again of Aggeus and Zachary the prophets.“ At the end of Psalm 136, the 1540 Great Bible has the following addition or verse not in the KJV: “O gave thanks to the Lord of Lords, for his mercy endureth for ever.“ An addition is also found in the 1540 Great Bible at the end of Psalm 134:1 [“even in the courts of the house of our God”]. Another addition is found at the end of Psalm 132:4 [“neither the temples of my head to take any rest”]. In just these few examples out of the seventy claimed additions, the Great Bible already has over one hundred words in Psalms that are not in the KJV. Gerald Hammond maintained: "Of all the books of the [English] Bible, the Psalter is the least in touch with the original text. This is a matter of familiarity--in the Authorized Version's case it is familiarity with the Great Bible version in the Book of Common Prayer" (Making of the English Bible, p. 86).

The Great Bible has some other additions in the Old Testament not found in the KJV. At the end of Proverbs 12:11, the 1540 edition of the Great Bible has the following: “who so hath pleasure to continue at the wine, leaveth dishonour in his own dwelling.” After Proverbs 13:13, the 1540 Great Bible added the following sentence: “A deceitful son shall have no good: but a discreet servant shall do full well, and his way shall prosper.” After Proverbs 15:5, the following is found in the 1540 Great Bible: “Where righteousness is plentiful, there is very great power, but the imaginations of the ungodly shall be rooted out.” After Proverbs 15:27, it has this addition: “Through mercy and faith are sins purged, and through the fear of the Lord doth every one eschew evil.”

The first authorized English Bible (the Great Bible) has over one hundred words in just one New Testament book (Acts) [see and check Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17; Rom. 4:5c, 4:18c, 8:23, 12:17 in the Great Bible]which are not found in the third authorized Bible (the KJV). How many more words would the Great Bible have than the KJV if all the books of the Bible were compared? Some other examples include Matthew 24:41 where the Great Bible added: "Two in a bed, the one shall be received, and the other refused." "He shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" is added to the end of Matthew 7:21. Another addition is found at Luke 16:21 [“and no man gave unto him”]. At the end of Luke 24:36, the 1540 edition added: “It is I, scare not.” At the end of 1 Corinthians 4:16, the Great Bible added: "as I follow Christ." The words "with whom also I am lodged" are added to the end of 1 Corinthians 16:19. The Great Bible added the following at 2 John 11: "Behold, I have told you before that ye should not be ashamed in the day of the Lord." After the word “fire” in Jude 1:23, there is also an addition [“and have compassion on the other”]. At the end of Jude 1:24, another addition is found [“at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”]. After the words “the third part” and before the phrase “of trees” at Revelation 8:7, the 1540 edition has added words [“of the earth was set on fire, and the third part”].

Thanks, Steven, for showing that if Gail Riplinger can praise Miles Coverdale and can accept his 1535 Coverdale's Bible, his 1538 English New Testament, and his 1539 Great Bible that she has not valid basis for her many accusations against the NKJV.

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale Thanks, Steven, for showing that if Gail Riplinger can praise Miles Coverdale

Most definite praise .. as a vessel in the process leading to the pure and perfect word of God. You should agree too, since his work laid the groundwork for the excellent Geneva Bible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale and can accept his 1535 Coverdale's Bible, his 1538 English New Testament, and his 1539 Great Bible

You err greatly if you think she "accepts" them as the pure and perfect word of God, or an acceptable alternative today to the 100% pure King James Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale that she has not valid basis for her many accusations against the NKJV.

GIGO .. you had to misrepresent her position, as if she (or I) claim the Coverdale Bibles (of any stripe, from Greek or the ones from Latin) are perfect.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Gail Riplinger wrote: "Miles Coverdale was the editor of one of the early English Bibles; the words of the Coverdale Bible are still seen in today's KJB, particularly in the Old Testament. He was intimately involved in the process of the Bible's being 'given' (2 Tim. 3:16) and 'purified' (Ps. 12:6, 7) in English" (Hazardous Materials, p. 1165).

Are you suggesting or impling that Gail Riplinger was saying that the Scripture that was given (2 Tim. 2:16) and purified (Ps. 12:6, 7) was not "the pure and perfect word of God?"

Gail Riplinger maintained: “The previous Bishops’ Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV” (In Awe, p. 17). Riplinger wrote: “In the main, the Bishops’ Bible is the same as all previous English Bibles” (In Awe, p. 567). The 1535 Coverdale's and 1539 Great Bible are two of those "previous English Bibles" that Riplinger claimed are in the main the same as the perfect, pure, and true Bishops' Bible. [bold added by this poster]

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale Gail Riplinger maintained: “The previous Bishops’ Bible (c1568-1611) was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV” (In Awe, p. 17).

Clearly, if you have not (snipped) context, this is incorrect. Your quotes are never trustworthy as giving full context, they always have to be double-checked by the reader, just look at your latest fiasco today, camphire, and a dozen other examples.

If that is the full context, then Gail Riplinger is simply incorrect on that point. Here are parts of what you omitted.

"Early English Bibles .. like the swan. Now they pale with the magnified details of the beautiful King James Bible"

(your extract)

"the KJV magnifies and mirrors more finely the glorious perfection of our precious Saviour, "Jesus, the author" (Heb 12:2).

Clearly you (snipped) the context on purpose. You may have a quibble that Gail Riplinger is using a concept and style of perfect and then .. more perfect and magnified brilliance .. a type of poetic writing. This would only be a quibble, you could make the point and probably elicit a . It is almost better that she has it the way she does, to watch how you fall into the trap of selective partial context-lacking quotation unto accusation.

Your using this quote in the manner you do, sans context, is simple more tawdry and selective quotation, sans writing ethics.

Note:
Rick Norris, from experience, will not simply acknowledge his error and retract the quote, nor will he give the quote in context.
His probabilism mentality compels him to try various other tactics.

If he realizes the presentation backfires, Rick may drop it from future writings, but he will never acknowledge the mistake. That is one aspect of the spiritual principality I recently referenced.

(Note: this post developed as reading. I did not check the quote before saying it was untrustworthy, I just know Rick Norris quotations from experience and the quote did not pass the smell test sans context.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

There is no need to retract an accurate quotation of a complete sentence written by Gail Riplinger.

You have no problem with your own misrepresentations, smear tactics, and false accusations so you clearly have no valid basis for objecting to an accurate quotation.

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coverdale There is no need to retract an accurate quotation of a complete sentence written by Gail Riplinger. .

Point proven.

Rick is like an addict.
He should have a little sign on him :

"Stop me before I quote out of context again !"

Shalom,
Steven Avery