Bible Timeline

www.kjvcompare.com/biblechart.pdf

That will take you to a link with a bible manuscript timeline. Can anyone spot any falsities in this chart.

Thanks,
Aaron

Anti-Catholic nonsense.

Ignore it.
Even the timeline given in my KJV-Concordance doesn’t agree with this one.

I don’t put a lot of faith in anything put together from J. Moorman’s mis-information… even other fundamentalist Christians have a few issues with Mr. Moorman: Follow Up to the James White–Jack Moorman KJV Debate

This chart completely omits that whenever possible, St. Jerome went back to the existing Greek and Hebrew texts. (quoted from several resources…)
Protestant Scholar Dean Milman, several hundred years later, where in he praises the efforts of St. Jerome’s translation (note the use of the word “Eastern” this referring to the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts)
… The translation of Jerome created a new language. The inflexible Latin became pliant and expansive, naturalizing the Eastern imagery, Eastern modes of expression and thought, and Eastern religious notions most uncongenial to its genius and character, and yet retaining much of its own peculiar strength, solidity and majesty…

We also have the Council of Trent: " Latin Vulgate… held as authentic… no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it (1546-04-08) "

Finally in St. Jerome’s own words he states that the two guiding principals of his work were to firstly go back to the original text in the original language and to secondly keep in mind that:
A slavishly literal translation from one language into another obscures the sense; the exuberance of the language lessens the yield. For while one’s diction is enslaved to cases and metaphors, it has to explain by tedious circumlocutions what a few words would otherwise sufficed to make plain (letter 57)
this was in reply to some criticisms of his work at that point. Many had there own agendas and wanted St. Jerome to translate the works to suit that agenda and he point blank refused to do so… in fact, many scholars have taken St. Jerome’s translation to task to refute his work so that they could promote their own agenda and when the original texts were found and they note just how extremely close St. Jerome’s translations are to the original language and have usually, quietly, dropped their inquiries.

Sad!!! :confused: What have they done to history???:eek:

Most protestant Bible translators use both the Antiochian and Alexandrian texts. The chart you have linked is the work of an insignificant (but noisy) group who claim the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the only one approved by God.

A silly distraction to all who love the scriptures. :rolleyes:

I think the deceit and pretension in this document is malicious, truly appalling, but important to learn from.

First, just a few strong concerns–from the top of the page:

The citation of numbers of manuscripts is nonsense, pure and simple; the phony big number on the left (hm, is that just coincidence?) is intended to suggest more support and authority. Of course, there are many ancient manuscripts, but sadly, the very first are lost. There is absolutely no basis for this foolish implication that there are in truth multiple manuscripts which better certify the accuracy of the KJV than the RD or NAB.

The arrows under the phrase “corruption of the scriptures” imply absurdly that Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome were cohorts of the Gnostics, Arians, and pagan philosophers.

The wonder of the printing press, coinciding marvelously with the emergence of nationalists and the precursers of empiricists, encouraged those delightfully enlightened supporters of Tyndale and Coverdale to hang, draw, and quarter hundreds of Catholics, impaling many of their heads on London bridges. Ironically, it had far less to do with religion than with economic and political power.

As we see repeated anew today, malice, greed, and the quest for power seek every possible weapon, and every disguise, including, sadly and tragically, religion.

I think the greatest lesson is that a religion that seeks to govern–those who want the power to control others–is not truly a religion.

Moorman, Grady, and Arkell have very little interest or respect for the Truth–far more in their personal power.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.