Lies repeated by scholars are nonethemore true. There are many fallacies out there to catch us. Study the chapter in Great Controversy on the Waldenses/Vaudois, and the source of their truth and convictions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why don't you do that yourself? Who has made a statement that is contrary to what it says about the Waldenses in the Great Controversy?

As far as I recall you see already in the second century strong indications the bishop of Rome thought of himself as superior. Have you read 1 Clement and commentaries on that letter?

How did the meaning of the title "bishop" develop from the time of the apostles through the second and third centuries?

The author of the Textus Receptus was the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. He remained a Roman Catholic and refused to follow the reformers. Not all of his Textus Receptus is based on Greek manuscripts, but were his own translations of the Latin Bible into Greek.

It may be your idea that these translations were superior to any other Greek manuscripts, but that does not change the basic question that the Textus Receptus is the product of a Roman Catholic scholar who refused to follow the reformers fully by distancing himself from his Roman Catholic tradition.

Even then the great question is how certain sections of the King James Version were translated to conform with the set doctrines of the Anglo-Catholic Church of England, even breaking the original rules of translation.

Finally, why did Ellen White permit herself to quote from a Bible where Westcott and Hort were among the most prominent editors? No warnings given.

We have heard quite a bit on this forum of the important work on Bible manuscripts done by the Roman Catholic saint and Church Doctor number 2 Jerome already in the 4th and 5th century. (We are not speaking of the Jerome who was a friend of Martin Luther who lived a thousand years later.)

1. Erasmus may have used some of the manuscripts prepared by St. Jerome, but did he follow him fully? It has been discovered that he did not.

2. How can you prove the superiority of a final text because part of it is based on what you consider the most uncorrupted text, when even that has been changed in the final edition?

This is true, Pastor Johann.


From Wiki:

You have referred to the Great Controversy, Green. Yes, Ellen White was glad that Erasmus had produced a Greek manuscript of the New Testament, but how does she describe the person who produced it?





Did she ever say his Greek manuscript, the Textus Receptus, was superior to any other?

Thank you for your comment, Rosangela.

The question isn't "should we ONLY use the King James Bible"?
Rather the question for me, is which Bible is the most likely to be accurate.

When it comes to deeper Bible Study I definitely prefer the King James Version. Other versions often add clarity and I have quite an assortment of different versions, yet often they also "water down" some truths, so my basic Bible is the King James Version.


For Ellen White, the King James Bible was also her basic Bible. Even after the new versions came out, she continued to use the KJV for most of her references. Yes, occasionally she would use a more modern version that added clarity to the thought, but they were NEVER her basic reference Bible.

You have.

I will answer your questions regarding Erasmus in the next post, where I will show your idea of him to be invalid. Furthermore, it will show that your ideas for "his" translation are invalid. Relative, however, to your final question, let me offer the following.

Mrs. White quoted from a great many men and women past and present to her time. Among them are D'Aubigne, the primary source for much of the book Great Controversy. He was an historian, not an Adventist. Did she ever offer a warning against reading D'Aubigne? Contrariwise, does she declare his writings to be inspired?

The absence of such comments from her pen do not mean that whatever she did not write must certainly be true or false. It simply means she offered no counsel on that point. Just because Mrs. White did not offer warnings against every error that may exist does not mean that other errors against which she did not warn do not exist. Anyone with a reasonable mind would recognize this.

The fact that even after the new Bible versions had begun to emerge during her time and yet she did not switch wholeheartedly to their usage speaks volumes. She certainly could have. She could have used the new versions for 99% of her textual references instead of the other way around. Why did she still rely on the King James so heavily, as Dedication has aptly pointed out?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.