Is the KJV or NIV correct on these verses?
Bible John
dictionaries found at my university I've found many contrary differences
between the KJV and other translations. I cant say what translation is correct
since I do not have a interlinear bible on me at this time so I cant look
at the Hebrew or Aramanic texts.
Below are just 3 of over 50 conflicting verses that I discovered in less than
a hour of study.
Passage #1
NIV ues the word "ibex"
[Dt 14:5] the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the
antelope and the mountain sheep.
KJV uses different words
[Dt 14:5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat,
and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
Passage #2
KJV
[Pr 30:28] The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
NIV
[Pr 30:28] a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings’
palaces.
Passage #3
Lev 11:5
NIV
[Lev 11:5] The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
it is unclean for you.
KJV
[Lev 11:5] And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
But why in the world do the NIV/KJV agree on animal language here, yet other
translations differ?
NKJV "hyrax"
[Lev 11:5] ‘the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven
hooves, is unclean to you;
NASB "shaphan"
[Lev 11:5] ‘Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide
the hoof, it is unclean to you;
HCSB "hyrax"
[Lev 11:5] the hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have hooves—it is
unclean for you;
So what isthe correct word? Coney, Shaphan or hyrax?
Thanks,
John
--
Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
[Jn 11:25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and
the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Grinder
[Subject: Re: Is the KJV or NIV correct on these verses?]
> Lev 11:5
>
> NIV
> [Lev 11:5] The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
> it is unclean for you.
> KJV
> [Lev 11:5] And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
> hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
Pastor Dave
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
Sure they do.
"However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply
means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and
rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and
a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is
essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food
goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can
now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly
digested."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree;
he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that
are planted in the house of Jehovah shall flourish
in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:12-13
Soul food
>NIV ues the word "ibex"
>[Dt 14:5] the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the
>antelope and the mountain sheep.
>
>KJV uses different words
>[Dt 14:5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat,
>and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
D'oh!
------------------------------------------------
"The real dichotomy in today's world is between reason and religion.
The future of civilisation rests upon how many people realise that and do something about it."
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Grinder
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:19:43 GMT, Grinder
> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>
>>Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
>
>
> Sure they do.
>
> "However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply
> means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and
> rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
> that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and
> a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
> Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is
> essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
> indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food
> goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
> special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can
> now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly
> digested."
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
Yes, I'm aware of the rationalization.
Expelling waste and reconsuming it does not qualify as regurgitation,
which would be to "raise up what has been swallowed." Every sense of
/'alah gerah/ notes the *upward* movement of *cud.* In the rabbit, what
we have is *downward* movement of *food*, followed by *downward*
movement of *feces*. Two such distinct sequences of events tend only to
be considered equivalent in the magical world of scriptural interpretation.
Moreover, the fact, if it indeed is a fact, that Linnaeus classified the
rabbit as a ruminant just means that he made the same error the writers
of the Bible did. If you've ever watched a rabbit, it's not that hard
to see why this assumption may have been made. It does look as if it is
chewing cud, when *in fact*, it is not.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=5&version=kjv
If you are really intent upon maintaining the literal truth of this
passage, you can point out that it's not exactly known what a /shaphan/
is -- it is variously translated as rock badger, hyrax or coney, but
that's a sort of educated guess that could very well be wrong. What's
more, the "rock badger" is unknown today, so it might be some sort of
extinct ruminant, or even what we know as domesticated cattle.
That last option has the additional benefit of being able to offer you a
ready supply of bullsh*t.
Gregory A Greenman
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com> declared...
Further, when rabbits eat their feces, they swallow them whole.
"Arrival of the caecotrophs at the anus triggers a reflex licking
of the anus and ingestion of the caecotrophs, which are swallowed
whole and not chewed."
http://www.aquavet.i12.com/Rabbit.htm
So rabbits eat faces not cud and they swallow it whole, not chew
it. The bible is wrong. Sorry PD.
--
Greg
----
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Pastor Dave
<gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:19:43 GMT, Grinder
>> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
>>
>>
>> Sure they do.
>>
>> "However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply
>> means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and
>> rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
>> that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and
>> a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
>> Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is
>> essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
>> indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food
>> goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
>> special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can
>> now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly
>> digested."
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
>
>Yes, I'm aware of the rationalization.
It's okay, I knew the facts wouldn't sway you, but I
thought I'd give you the opportunity to be honest.
sussm...@hotmail.com
words appeared only once or twice in the whole Bible, obviously refer
to some sort of animal but at this late date nobody is sure what animal
was meant. One of the reasons for this uncertainty is that, of course,
the animals were those specifically found in the Holy Land and not
necessarily elsewhere. So, when the Bible was read and explained (and
translated) in other countries, it would be natural and expected that
these unfamiliar words would be connected with some animal in that
other country. A particular word in Hebrew describing some animal in
the Holy Land would probably be translated in translations made in
China as some animal that could be found in China, even if that was not
the same as the Judean animal, and a translation in England would most
likely turn it into an animal found in England (at least in a zoo or
circus), etc.
Gregory A Greenman
Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> declared...
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:28:58 GMT, Grinder
> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:19:43 GMT, Grinder
> >> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure they do.
> >>
> >> "However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply
> >> means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and
> >> rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
> >> that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and
> >> a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
> >> Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is
> >> essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
> >> indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food
> >> goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
> >> special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can
> >> now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly
> >> digested."
> >>
> >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
> >
> >Yes, I'm aware of the rationalization.
>
> It's okay, I knew the facts wouldn't sway you, but I
> thought I'd give you the opportunity to be honest.
Fact: the bible says rabbits chew their cud.
Fact: what rabbits do does not involve chewing.
Fact: what rabbits do does not involve cud.
Fact: rabbits do not chew cud.
Fact: AIG advocates ignoring facts if they contradict their
beliefs.
Conclusion1: the bible is wrong.
Conclusion2: AIG is not a source that should be trusted.
Pastor Dave
<s...@sig.below> spake thusly:
Try reading up on the subject. It is not their feces.
You believe what you want. That's up to you.
rogue
Bible John wrote:
> Looking through a dictionary of biblical imagery, or one of the many
> dictionaries found at my university I've found many contrary differences
> between the KJV and other translations. I cant say what translation is correct
> since I do not have a interlinear bible on me at this time so I cant look
> at the Hebrew or Aramanic texts.
JERRY
One of the things I have pointed out to theists over the past few years
is that the NIV appears to be the apologists version. It appears from
it's translation that the translators were aware of many of the
problems within the text and attempted to translate to rationalize away
those problems. It's translations differ remarkedly from most other
translations of other, innocuous texts.
I like the American Standard version myself, but since the Skeptics
Annotated Bible is KJV and I do a lot of copy and paste from it's text,
it's the one I use. However, I could just as easily copy and paste
from the ASV instead.
Grinder
He has, and he has also provided a reference for his claim. You could
do the same, or you could say something like "believe what you want" and
run away.
Here's another reference for you, emphasis mine:
| Lagomorphs [pikas, rabbits and hares] have a cloaca
| and digestive system greatly modified for processing
| large quantities of vegetation. When they can be,
| they are picky eaters, taking only the best quality
| browse and graze. They have a very efficient digestive
| system involving a large caecum (the appendix in
| humans). Bacterial action in the caecum digests the
| cellulose in much the same way as forgotten celery
| gets digested in the refrigerator crisper. Certain
| nutrients can pass directly into the vascularized caecal
| wall. Certain nutrients, however, would be lost except
| for refection, the *ingestion of soft fecal pellets.*
http://www.chaffeezoo.org/animals/rabbit.html
Or even this, from Meriam-Webster's Medical Dictonary. Again, emphasis
mine:
| re·fec·tion [ri-'fek-sh&n] noun
| 1 : satisfaction of hunger and thirst
| 2 a : the *eating of feces* especially by the animal
| producing them
| b : spontaneous recovery of vitamin-depleted animals
| on a high starch diet presumably resulting from
| *consumption of feces* enriched with vitamins
| synthesized by intestinal bacteria
Grinder
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:28:58 GMT, Grinder
> <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:19:43 GMT, Grinder
>>><gri...@no.spam.maam.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, neither is correct -- rabbits do not chew cud.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure they do.
>>>
>>>"However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply
>>>means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and
>>>rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants
>>>that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and
>>>a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.
>>>Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is
>>>essentially the same principle as rumination, and does
>>>indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food
>>>goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
>>>special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can
>>>now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly
>>>digested."
>>>
>>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
>>
>>Yes, I'm aware of the rationalization.
>
>
> It's okay, I knew the facts wouldn't sway you, but I
> thought I'd give you the opportunity to be honest.
You've offered no facts -- only rationalizations that conflict with
cited facts.
Gregory A Greenman
Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> declared...
Gee, I could have sworn I had read up on the subject. Did you not
notice that URL I gave? Did you not notice that the page was
written by the Head of Exotic Animal Services in the Veterinary
School at the University of Edinburgh? It seems she knows alot
more about rabbits than you seem to want to.
Bible Bob
<johnw...@yahoo.comPDA> wrote:
>Looking through a dictionary of biblical imagery, or one of the many
>dictionaries found at my university I've found many contrary differences
>between the KJV and other translations. I cant say what translation is correct
>since I do not have a interlinear bible on me at this time so I cant look
>at the Hebrew or Aramanic texts.
>
>Below are just 3 of over 50 conflicting verses that I discovered in less than
>a hour of study.
>
>Passage #1
>
>NIV ues the word "ibex"
>[Dt 14:5] the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the
>antelope and the mountain sheep.
>
>KJV uses different words
>[Dt 14:5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat,
>and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
The KJV translates "aqqo" as wild goat. Strong describes the "aqqo"
as an ibex. Consider this when it comes to animal names. They are
usually translations of words that indicate traits or descriptions.
The only accurate way to determine what a word means is to compare all
of it's usages. A word is usually defined by the context in which it
is used the first time it is used. The context in subsequent usages
will provide additional meaning. In the case of "aqqo" the word is
used only once in the Bible and that is in the above verse. Notice
that each of the animals are preceded by the conjunction and via the
figure Polysyndeton which is used to make enumerated lists. The verse
can be expressed as follows:
The hart,
and the roebuck,
and the fallow deer,
and the wild goat,
and the pygarg,
and the wild ox,
and the chamois.
Now, let's look at the context. Notice that verse four speaks of
domesticated animals. Notice that the figure Polysyndeton is not used
in verse four. Verse five speaks of wild animals and the seven
animals listed are emphsized by enumeration. Then to make sure that
there is no misunderstanding, verse six tells you attributes that must
apply to every one of the animals named in the two verses.
Deuteronomy 14:4 KJV
These [are] the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the
goat,
Deuteronomy 14:5 KJV
The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and
the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
Deuteronomy 14:6 KJV
And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two
claws, [and] cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
Finally, the Hebrew "aqqo" is derived from "anak" to shriek or cry;
but Strong says "Probably from anak; slender, that is, the ibex: -
wild goat." The KJV editors chose to use "wild goat." The NIV
editors chose to use "ibex" and were probably influenced by Strong's
definition which came to be after the KJV was published.
One would have to know all of the animals that lived in Israel when
the law was given. The people that lived there would know which
animal was which and which animals had the right kind of feet. We
don't know with 100% accuracy when it comes to plants and animals in
the Bible.
With regad to application. The laws applied to Israel; not to the
church of God that exists in this dispensation. Thus, in the United
States we would look for meat from animals that had the right kind of
feet and chewed the cud if we wanted to observe a Kosher diet.
>
>Passage #2
>
>KJV
>[Pr 30:28] The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
>
>NIV
>[Pr 30:28] a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings’
>palaces.
Don't know the answer; but you could probably work it out using the
research principals above.
>
>Passage #3
>
>Lev 11:5
>
>NIV
>[Lev 11:5] The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
>it is unclean for you.
>KJV
>[Lev 11:5] And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
>hoof; he is unclean unto you.
>
>But why in the world do the NIV/KJV agree on animal language here, yet other
>translations differ?
Because they are "versions;" not translations. All of our English
Bibles are versions or paraphrases. They are not translations. A
translation would be a word for word interpretation which would result
in words being out of English word order. Also, a translation would
probably omit most if not all of the Ellipsis which are usually
presented in italic type.
I prefer to use and do use Interlinears in lieu of Bible because
interlinears provide a translation plus a version in the margins.
>
>NKJV "hyrax"
>[Lev 11:5] ‘the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven
>hooves, is unclean to you;
>
>NASB "shaphan"
>[Lev 11:5] ‘Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide
>the hoof, it is unclean to you;
>
>HCSB "hyrax"
>[Lev 11:5] the hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have hooves—it is
>unclean for you;
>
>So what isthe correct word? Coney, Shaphan or hyrax?
Strong says:
H8227
shaphan
shaw-fawn'
From H8226; a species of rock rabbit (from its hiding), that is,
probably the hyrax: - coney.
H8226
saphan
saw-fan'
A primitive root; to conceal (as a valuable): - treasure.
Here are the four places where the word shaphan is used (when it is
not used of Shaphan the scribe). The context should give you a better
understanding of what a "coney" is:
Leviticus 11:5 KJV
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof;
he [is] unclean unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:7 KJV
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of
them that divide the cloven hoof; [as] the camel, and the hare, and
the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; [therefore]
they [are] unclean unto you.
Psalms 104:18 KJV
The high hills [are] a refuge for the wild goats; [and] the rocks for
the conies.
Proverbs 30:26 KJV
The conies [are but] a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the
rocks;
Conies are animals that live in the rocks, chew the cud, but divideth
not the hoof. If you know which animal lived in Israel at the time
the law was given to the time of Solomon and know which animals were
not powerful and were numerous (feeble), chewed the cud, lived in
rocks and did not have a cloven hoof, you would know what the animal
was. Since they were numerous, they may still be around and you might
be able to find a books with attributes that would help narrow down
the list.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
Bible Bob
Grinder,
You make a good point that a literalist would read the passage as
literal not taking point of view or common beliefs into consideration.
From the point of view of people, the animal chewed cud.
Point of view; or, perspective is a must adhere to principal in OT
research because much of the OT is expressed from man's point of view
so that man would understand what was being said. For example, the
book of Kings provides the human perspective while God's perpective of
the same events are in Chronicles. Often, God is blamed for what
other did because the people blamed God for everything. This is
especially true when it comes to the supernatural because Israel had
no ability to discern spiritual matters.
Grinder
I can appreciate that you want to make a point, but there's no need to
twist what I've said to give yourself a springboard.
Plainly, my point is that rabbits do not chew cud, as it says in the
bible. That is an objective fact, and you need not consider anyone's
viewpoint to determine that.
Perhaps God, when dictating the Bible, said that rabbits chew cud
because that what humans thought was true. None of that, however, makes
the statement "rabbits chew their cud" true from *any* perspective.
Carry on...
Vernon
Gregory A Greenman
Bob <biblebo...@biblebob.net> declared...
Oh, I see. That makes sense now. In Leviticus 11:6, god said:
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
instead of:
And the hare, because he eateth his own feces, but divideth not
the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Although the actual wording of Leviticus is incorrect in saying
that rabbits chew their cud, god had to phrase it that way
because the ancient jews were not capable of understanding the
alternative.
Steven J.
Bible John wrote:
> Looking through a dictionary of biblical imagery, or one of the many
> dictionaries found at my university I've found many contrary differences
> between the KJV and other translations. I cant say what translation is correct
> since I do not have a interlinear bible on me at this time so I cant look
> at the Hebrew or Aramanic texts.
>
First, consider the modern American species, _Puma concolor_, commonly
referred to as "mountain lion," "cougar," "puma," and "panther" (the
last of these being shared, of course, with _Panthera pardus_), as well
as other names. You can't be sure, just because two translations favor
different names for an animal, that they have two different species in
mind.
Second, they may. Ancient Hebrew is, as far as I know, not a great
language for biological precision. It uses the same word, _tannin_,
for the "great" creatures created on day four (usually rendered
"whales") and as another word for the serpent into which Aaron's staff
was turned to impress Pharoah. At least, Hebrew was as imprecise and
ambiguous as English, and probably more so, in naming living things.
The translators cannot be certain, in some cases, just what animal the
author was discussing.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Passage #3
>
> Lev 11:5
>
> NIV
> [Lev 11:5] The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
> it is unclean for you.
> KJV
> [Lev 11:5] And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
> hoof; he is unclean unto you.
>
> But why in the world do the NIV/KJV agree on animal language here, yet other
> translations differ?
>
> NKJV "hyrax"
> [Lev 11:5] 'the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven
> hooves, is unclean to you;
>
> NASB "shaphan"
> [Lev 11:5] 'Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide
> the hoof, it is unclean to you;
>
> HCSB "hyrax"
> [Lev 11:5] the hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have hooves-it is
> unclean for you;
>
> So what isthe correct word? Coney, Shaphan or hyrax?
>
"Shaphan" is a transliteration of the original Hebrew name for the
animal, which is one technique for dealing with the inability to decide
what the original author meant to say (cf. the instruction to Noah to
build the Ark of "gopher" -- _qopher_ -- wood, which might mean
"cypress," or "waterproofed," or something else altogether). "Coney"
and "hyrax" are different names for the same animal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
> --
> Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
> Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
> [Jn 11:25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and
> the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
-- Steven J.
Bible John
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
> Two points need to be made here.
>
> First, consider the modern American species, _Puma concolor_, commonly
> referred to as "mountain lion," "cougar," "puma," and "panther" (the
> last of these being shared, of course, with _Panthera pardus_), as well
> as other names. You can't be sure, just because two translations favor
> different names for an animal, that they have two different species in
> mind.
I see. I did not know this. Very interesting.
>
> Second, they may. Ancient Hebrew is, as far as I know, not a great
> language for biological precision.
Is that why all these translations differ on animal names?
I figured that the NASB was correct. Looking at an Interlinear bible it
appears that the NASB is closer than any other text to the original
manuscripts. The KJV is second.
Thanks,
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, łI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
chri...@quik.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>Looking through a dictionary of biblical imagery, or one of the many
>dictionaries found at my university I've found many contrary differences
>between the KJV and other translations. I cant say what translation is correct
>since I do not have a interlinear bible on me at this time so I cant look
>at the Hebrew or Aramanic texts.
>
>Below are just 3 of over 50 conflicting verses that I discovered in less than
>a hour of study.
>
>Passage #1
>
>NIV ues the word "ibex"
>[Dt 14:5] the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the
>antelope and the mountain sheep.
>
>KJV uses different words
>[Dt 14:5] The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat,
>and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
>
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the mountain
goat, the antelope, and the mountain sheep
NKJV
Same critters, different names. No big deal. Since we Christians are
no longer under the Law, it doesn't pertain to our living anyway.
>Passage #2
>
>KJV
>[Pr 30:28] The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
>
>NIV
>[Pr 30:28] a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings’
>palaces.
It would appear to be an error in the NIV this time.
Prov 30:27-28
27 The locusts have no king,
Yet they all advance in ranks;
28 The spider skillfully grasps with its hands,
And it is in kings' palaces.
NKJV
>
>Passage #3
>
>Lev 11:5
>
>NIV
>[Lev 11:5] The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof;
>it is unclean for you.
>KJV
>[Lev 11:5] And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
>hoof; he is unclean unto you.
>
>But why in the world do the NIV/KJV agree on animal language here, yet other
>translations differ?
>
>NKJV "hyrax"
>[Lev 11:5] ‘the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven
>hooves, is unclean to you;
>
>NASB "shaphan"
>[Lev 11:5] ‘Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide
>the hoof, it is unclean to you;
>
>HCSB "hyrax"
>[Lev 11:5] the hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have hooves—it is
>unclean for you;
>
>So what isthe correct word? Coney, Shaphan or hyrax?
>
Again, it doesn't matter what the current English name is for the
animal, we are no longer under the Law.
If you are a kjv-onlier, I am sorry for you.
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
chri...@quik.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
last few years.
Vernon
NASB is considered the best, almost interlinear.
BUT
It is based of the Alexandrian text and loses a lot by being so word
for word, an incorrect construct with any language.
>
> To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
>
> I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
> last few years.
AHA, A backslider!!!!!!!!
:>)
Mike Painter
> Again, it doesn't matter what the current English name is for the
> animal, we are no longer under the Law.
>
We can ignore what we don't like in the bible.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Vernon
I think not.
chri...@quik.com
Naah. I just read more of my NKJV now. :-) I will buy a new leather
NIV today or tomorrow though; the Baptist church I have been visiting
uses it. The Pastor told me they had gone through two changes of
Bibles in their congregation (as the ones read from the pulpit) in
recent years before he got there. He doesn't like the NIV much, but
uses it rather than to force another change.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
chri...@quik.com
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
rather attack me personally than to understand my statement.
I gave the following example somewhere else in this ng recently:
When I lived in Germany I was subject to German Law. If I violated
it, I would have gone to a German jail.
Since moving back to the USA, I am no longer under the German Law; I
am under US Law. German Law has not passed away or been removed; it
is still there. I just am not under it.
I will just let the Bible speak for itself:
Gal 3:21-25
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if
there had been a law given which could have given life, truly
righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has
confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ
might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were
kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward
be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ,
that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we
are no longer under a tutor .
NKJV
After faith is come, we are NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR (THE LAW).
We must take ALL of what the Bible says, not just the things we want.
in Christ Jesus,
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>>> To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
>>>
>>> I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
>>> last few years.
>>
>>AHA, A backslider!!!!!!!!
>>:>)
>
>Naah. I just read more of my NKJV now. :-) I will buy a new leather
>NIV today or tomorrow though; the Baptist church I have been visiting
>uses it. The Pastor told me they had gone through two changes of
>Bibles in their congregation (as the ones read from the pulpit) in
>recent years before he got there. He doesn't like the NIV much, but
>uses it rather than to force another change.
Just a friendly FYI, the NIV is based on a corrupt
text. I never, ever use it for preaching.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"If you will not believe,
Surely you will not be established."
- Isaiah 7:9b
Gregory A Greenman
Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> declared...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:56:10 -0600, chri...@quik.com
> spake thusly:
>
>
> >>> To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
> >>>
> >>> I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
> >>> last few years.
> >>
> >>AHA, A backslider!!!!!!!!
> >>:>)
> >
> >Naah. I just read more of my NKJV now. :-) I will buy a new leather
> >NIV today or tomorrow though; the Baptist church I have been visiting
> >uses it. The Pastor told me they had gone through two changes of
> >Bibles in their congregation (as the ones read from the pulpit) in
> >recent years before he got there. He doesn't like the NIV much, but
> >uses it rather than to force another change.
>
> Just a friendly FYI, the NIV is based on a corrupt
> text. I never, ever use it for preaching.
A trait which it shares with all other versions of the bible.
Mike Painter
Pretty much whatever you want it to judging by the response of Christians.
Do you let your wife speak in church, do you pay or charge interest?
Those are all forbidden and some sects still practice the former while the
latter was practiced until it was found it was needed to do business.
ruth
Do you love God with all your heart, mind soul and strength? Do you
believe that this is the most important commandment we should try to
keep?
This Law is found in Deut.6. Is is not even one of the "10" that were
written on stone. Do you dare to say that no longer are we expected to
follow this commandment?
If you agree that we should follow this one, then what about the #2
commandment from Lev.19:18 to love our neighbor as ourselves? Also not
one of the "10", just one of those 613 or so jots and tittles.
Some people say that only those that were given in the NT are to be
obeyed now. The Jerusalem Council said that gentile believers (not
Jewish believers)may not eat blood or things sacrificed to idols or
strangled and engage in sexual imorality. Can you tell me where these
would fall into the top 2 catagories?
Of course they must be under one or the other as Yeshua said.
They belong under #1. They were given by YHVH through Moses. And if
you love God, says 1John 5:3, you will obey all His commandments.
So you must not murder, steal, commit adultery, marry your sister, eat
shellfish or pork or roadkill, and you must keep the 7th day Sabbath
and Sukkot, etc., just as YHVH, Yeshua, and Paul said were good for you
to do.
You do not have to be circumcised, separate meat and milk or celebrate
Christmas, or give animal sacrifices.
You don't have to go to church on Sunday and keep your wife from
talking there.
Any other questions?
Ruth
Vernon
I thought that commandment was to love the Lord with 90% and then only
when convenient.
That commandment, in itself, is proof positive that man (even
women)absolutely cannot live up to the commandments. We can Love Him.
We can "strive" as Paul says. We always come up short except for the
Grace of God and Propitiation.
chri...@quik.com
little bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>>> To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
>>>>
>>>> I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
>>>> last few years.
>>>
>>>AHA, A backslider!!!!!!!!
>>>:>)
>>
>>Naah. I just read more of my NKJV now. :-) I will buy a new leather
>>NIV today or tomorrow though; the Baptist church I have been visiting
>>uses it. The Pastor told me they had gone through two changes of
>>Bibles in their congregation (as the ones read from the pulpit) in
>>recent years before he got there. He doesn't like the NIV much, but
>>uses it rather than to force another change.
>
>Just a friendly FYI, the NIV is based on a corrupt
>text. I never, ever use it for preaching.
And another FYI, you have never shown any valid reason to consider the
texts (plural) that the NIV is based upon to be corrupt. You have
only made the claim.
In Christ Jesus,
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com>, posted this
>little bit of stuff:
>you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:56:10 -0600, chri...@quik.com
>>spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>>> To read, I prefer the NASB or the NKJV.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to read the KJV a lot, but don't seem to read it as much these
>>>>> last few years.
>>>>
>>>>AHA, A backslider!!!!!!!!
>>>>:>)
>>>
>>>Naah. I just read more of my NKJV now. :-) I will buy a new leather
>>>NIV today or tomorrow though; the Baptist church I have been visiting
>>>uses it. The Pastor told me they had gone through two changes of
>>>Bibles in their congregation (as the ones read from the pulpit) in
>>>recent years before he got there. He doesn't like the NIV much, but
>>>uses it rather than to force another change.
>>
>>Just a friendly FYI, the NIV is based on a corrupt
>>text. I never, ever use it for preaching.
>
>And another FYI, you have never shown any valid reason to consider the
>texts (plural) that the NIV is based upon to be corrupt. You have
>only made the claim.
Actually, I have supported that statement before.
It is based on the Alexandrian Text. Your NKJV
is mostly based on the Majority Texts, with some
reference to the Alexandrian Text. Mostly just
some annoying "the most reliable texts say..."
garbage. I use the NKJV myself. It corrects
a lot of the bad single word translations of the KJV.
It does have some problems though and the KJV
corrects it in some places. I'd really like to have
a really nice, soft leather bound parallel of the
KJV/NKJV, with large print and good, quality paper
and lots of room for notes.
Yea, good luck with that, huh?! :)
The NKJV leaves out an important word here and
there. Translation decisions I guess, but the words
are in the original text, so I think it's a bad choice
to do that. (:
I'm also waiting for the KJ3 to go into print. That
one is based solely on the MT and will replace
the LITV (same translators) and should be very
accurate and it uses high quality paper from
India.
http://www.sovgracepub.com/bibles/Buy2005KJ3LiteralTrans.htm
Mike Painter
As I said, the law means what you want it to and you ignore what you don't
want.
If there was a god, any god, I would not respect it much less "love" it
until it did what any decent person would do. Practice what it preached.
Millions of children die from malaria alone every year, a horrible death.
The parents would stop it if they could but this "loving" god just watchesd
their death.
Vernon
You missed my question / statement ENTIRELY.
That is only because you know nothing of the bible or the Gospel.
You have proved that you don't even know the DEFINITION of Law or The Law.
You then revert to pedantic posting.
Mike Painter
You asked if I knew the difference. I gave an answer.
If you disagree with the answer then give a definition that is accepted by
all christianity.
(I can already hear the bagpipes.)
memyselfandI
That is only because you know nothing of the bible or the Gospel.
You have proved that you don't even know the DEFINITION of Law or The Law.
You then revert to pedantic posting.
Look in the bible for references to law and the law (note two different
things) DUUHHHH
You wont because you don't really care. Trolls don't look for answers.
Mike Painter
>>>
>>> You missed my question / statement ENTIRELY.
>>> That is only because you know nothing of the bible or the Gospel.
>>> You have proved that you don't even know the DEFINITION of Law or
>>> The Law. You then revert to pedantic posting.
>>
>>
>> You asked if I knew the difference. I gave an answer.
>> If you disagree with the answer then give a definition that is
>> accepted by all christianity.
>> (I can already hear the bagpipes.)
>>
>>
> You missed the question / statement ENTIRELY.
> That is only because you know nothing of the bible or the Gospel.
> You have proved that you don't even know the DEFINITION of Law or The
> Law. You then revert to pedantic posting.
>
>
> Look in the bible for references to law and the law (note two
> different things) DUUHHHH
>
My answer is that different sects ignore different parts of both "law and
the law " to quote you.
You ignored both my aanswer and my question.
The only answer you can give to my question is "But they are not really
christians if they don't agree with me."
The bagpipes move closer.
chri...@quik.com
No, you have made statements based upon your own opinions of things,
nothing more.
>It is based on the Alexandrian Text.
You have stated that, but you have not shown the Alexandrian Text to
be "corrupt." You have given opinions, but not never demonstrated any
fact.
>Your NKJV
>is mostly based on the Majority Texts, with some
>reference to the Alexandrian Text. Mostly just
>some annoying "the most reliable texts say..."
>garbage.
Another OPINION of yours, that the most reliable texts are garbage.
Again, no EVIDENCE of any corruption; JUST OPINION.
>I use the NKJV myself.
I do too, most of the time. On Wednesday this week though, I
purchased a nice leather-bound NIV. The pastor at the church we are
visiting uses it, and it will be easier to follow along.
We are leaving the GARB Baptist church we have been members of for
several years (since moving to this town) because home-school parents
have made that particular congregation into a "holy huddle," with no
outreach at all any more.
>It corrects
>a lot of the bad single word translations of the KJV.
>It does have some problems though and the KJV
>corrects it in some places. I'd really like to have
>a really nice, soft leather bound parallel of the
>KJV/NKJV, with large print and good, quality paper
>and lots of room for notes.
>
>Yea, good luck with that, huh?! :)
Not only that, but it would require a wheelbarrow to carry it its
pages would be so large.
>
>The NKJV leaves out an important word here and
>there. Translation decisions I guess, but the words
>are in the original text, so I think it's a bad choice
>to do that. (:
>
>I'm also waiting for the KJ3 to go into print. That
>one is based solely on the MT and will replace
>the LITV (same translators) and should be very
>accurate and it uses high quality paper from
>India.
>
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
Once again, you make the same claim. I have done so
and I am still waiting for you to respond to the post
which reveals that you have lied about me and what I
have said regarding this issue. You keep ignoring it.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"Be strong all people of the land. Do not fear."
"If you will not believe, surely you will not be
established." - Jehovah
vernon
The Leather bound "Companion Bible" is not far from that, except large
print isn't available in leather bound. Leather is for people under 65
because it would be a waist of money to spend on an old person.
>
>
> Not only that, but it would require a wheelbarrow to carry it its
> pages would be so large.
>
>>The NKJV leaves out an important word here and
>>there. Translation decisions I guess, but the words
>>are in the original text, so I think it's a bad choice
>>to do that. (:
>>
>>I'm also waiting for the KJ3 to go into print. That
>>one is based solely on the MT and will replace
>>the LITV (same translators) and should be very
>>accurate and it uses high quality paper from
>>India.
>>
>
> In Christ Jesus,
> Christian
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
I use what is called the Companion bible.
It is a KJV with tremendous references.
My other favorite is the NKJV.
The church I go to uses NIV because of its popularity.
I gave my wife an NIV so it would be easier to follow in church and
since her native tongue is French, much easier to read.
Women have a more difficult time anyway. he he he he
ruth
> ruth wrote:
> > Mike Painter wrote:
> >
> >>Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mike Painter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>chri...@quik.com wrote:
> >>>> > Again, it doesn't matter what the current English name is for the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>animal, we are no longer under the Law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Translation:
> >>>>We can ignore what we don't like in the bible.
> >>>>Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
> >>>>one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
> >>>>be fulfilled.
> >>>
> >>>Do you know what law or the Law means?
This passage says Yeshua did not come to destroyed "the Law" or the
Prophets, in verse 17. So in this verse as well as in verse 18 "the
Law" probably refers to the Torah which contains the Mosaic Law.
By the way, verse 18 actually says, "...till all comes to be". The word
"fulfilled" in verse 17, is not used in verse 18.
Ruth
> >>>
> >>>I think not.
Many people say that without "the" the word "law" can refer to many
different laws. For example: the law of sin and death, the law of the
flesh, the traditions of the pharisees, pagan laws, etc. "The Law"
they say only refers to the Mosaic Law. Have you found that to be an
absolute consistancy?
Ruth
> >>
> >>Pretty much whatever you want it to judging by the response of Christians.
> >>
> >>Do you let your wife speak in church, do you pay or charge interest?
> >>Those are all forbidden and some sects still practice the former while the
> >>latter was practiced until it was found it was needed to do business.
> >
> >
> > Do you love God with all your heart, mind soul and strength? Do you
> > believe that this is the most important commandment we should try to
> > keep?
> > This Law is found in Deut.6. It is not even one of the "10" that were
Luke 1:6 says that Elizabeth and Zachariah both were righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord,
blameless.
Deut.6:5 is the commandment to love God with all your heart, mind, soul
and strength. It was one of the commandments E&Z observed in a
blameless manner before God.
Under the Mosaic animal sacrifice system, E&Z were righteous and
blameless. They did not intentionally disobey any of YHVH's Laws. Did
they unintentionally disobey, of course. Did they repent and give the
appropriate sacrifice, yes. Therefore in God's eyes, they were
righteous and blameless, even though they came up short as compared to
the perfection of Yeshua and the perfect sinlessness of Adam before the
fall. That is the perfection needed to return to Paradise and is only
available to us through the Promised Seed of Gen.3, Yeshua.
Believers in Yeshua, even though there is no more animal sacrifices
allowed because there is no altar in Jerusalem, have the promise of
forgiveness, said Yeshua, so they too can also be righteous and
blameless before YHVH as E&Z.
Yeshua portrayed the grace of YHVH in the Gospels but the grace of God
is not absent from the time before His coming. The animal sacrifice
system was an example of that grace. And we know that there is only
one way to be saved yet Moses, Elijah, etc, were saved, therefore
belief in that Savior to come, was also a demonstration of YHVH's grace
before Yeshua actually came and died.
All Scripture is an example of YHVH's grace to us. Without His Word,
how would we ever know Him as we do?
The question all of us must answer is how are they to walk here on
earth.
Did YHVH revoke His guide to living that He gave through Moses?
Yeshua said that not one jot or tittle of that Holy, just and good Law,
was to be destroyed? Some people think that what He said only lasted
until His death and after that began a new "Church" ordered guide.
That is hard for me to accept. No other Law of God was ever revoked.
The Laws given to Noah and Abraham are still in effect. If YHVH
intended to revoke any of His Laws by the death of Yeshua, would He
have ever made a statement such as He did in Matt.5:17-20?
I have found no reason to believe that the whole Mosaic Law is not
still in effect.
What has happened is that we have been led to believe that YHVH's Holy,
just and GOOD Law is not a blessing from God but is in fact a burden or
yoke. That is a lie from Satan. He wants us to doubt the Love and
wisdom of our Father just as Adam and Eve did.
When Satan got us to call the Word of God, "old", we stopped thinking
of it as the Word of God. Within that Word of God are many indications
of the continuance of God's complete Holy Law. Instead of looking at
the Law as everlasting and where some Scripture seems to indicate a
different idea, as those needing to be examined closer; instead we
think we would rather look to our own ideas.
Ruth
chri...@quik.com
SHOW ME the evidence that these texts are corrupt. I did respond to
the post in which you SLANDEROUSLY CLAIMED I lied. As I said in
another post today, my newsgroups thing was down for 3 days and I
couldn't even download headers. They are up now, and I am changing
ISP's on Monday.
So SHOW ME EVIDENCE that these texts are corrupt. Don't give
"opinions," or "what-if's," but CITE EVIDENCE we may ACTUALLY SEE AND
CHECK.
In the Name of Jesus,
chri...@quik.com
soon.
>>
>>
>> Not only that, but it would require a wheelbarrow to carry it its
>> pages would be so large.
>>
>>>The NKJV leaves out an important word here and
>>>there. Translation decisions I guess, but the words
>>>are in the original text, so I think it's a bad choice
>>>to do that. (:
>>>
>>>I'm also waiting for the KJ3 to go into print. That
>>>one is based solely on the MT and will replace
>>>the LITV (same translators) and should be very
>>>accurate and it uses high quality paper from
>>>India.
>>>
>>
>> In Christ Jesus,
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
>> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
>> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
>
>
>I use what is called the Companion bible.
>It is a KJV with tremendous references.
>My other favorite is the NKJV.
>
>The church I go to uses NIV because of its popularity.
>
>I gave my wife an NIV so it would be easier to follow in church and
>since her native tongue is French, much easier to read.
>
>Women have a more difficult time anyway. he he he he
I dunno. My wife sez she is smarter than I am. Sometimes she proves
it!
vernon
There is the law which ALL of the old testament.
There is the law which is scripture in general
There is the law which is the big 70 of Moses.
There is the law which is the ten commandments.
there is the law which is all direct commandments.
There is the law of "what" men should aspire to and since it is totally
impossible, Jesus fulfilled the same. This is the area Jesus addressed
SEVERAL times. Paul also addressed it. Peter addressed it.
Many if not most Christians today make the same error as the Pharisees
(hypocrites) by looking at "the law" as a bunch of simple minded rules.
LEGALISM LEGALISM LEGALISM
Oh, yes, If you have children don't forget to stone them to death if
they disobey.
Don't eat pork.
DEFINITELY NEVER wear polyester.
THAT is the "MOSAIC" law.
1. None are righteous.
2. Everyone sins continuously.
3. Jesus is required because of 1 & 2.
To even THINK that you can be worthy of God or salvation by what you do
or don't do is a sure fire slap in Jesus face. Guess what the
consequences are.
stone
chri...@quik.com wrote in message ...
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it
came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church,
and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch.
The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian
missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed
the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed
roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with
Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted
form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to
make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek
manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch.
[Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God
almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
was a lesser God.]
1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his
personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already
removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome
later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the
original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th
century.
Eusebius was known to be a "Liar for God" and a forger of documents and to
quote him - "We shall introduce into this history in general only those
events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).
1 John 5:7 is not in the Alexandrian text. A gnostic heretic or egyptian
philosopher that didn't believe in the trinity removed that verse in the 4th
century.
1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the
scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the
Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were
made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian
faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real
Christians.
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS
Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of
one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one
origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou
art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days
Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow
thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it
you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow
up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you
when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee -
revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen
Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread
alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"
Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised
Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"
Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know
not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the
possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.
Excerpts from
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible
versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the
Christian faith.
Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English
Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC)
NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New
International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King
James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised
Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's
English Version (Good News For Modern Man)
The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of
the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by
Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was
translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek
manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts
agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences
between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King
James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from
Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question.
Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the
textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern
versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of
the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus
receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these
corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5%
corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the
vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD
or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The
vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the
gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been
passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In
1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received
text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the
reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was
translated.
John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words
are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are
frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole
clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause
preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry
Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
There have been several editions, but no revisions, of the King James bible.
Go to Scourby.com and click on why the King James version is the best. There
is a lengthy and detailed study of why the later EDITIONS of the (AV 1611)
King James bible are all the same as the original. The English usage of
words was just updated.
http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm
>>
>>Actually, I have supported that statement before.
>
>No, you have made statements based upon your own opinions of things,
>nothing more.
>
>>It is based on the Alexandrian Text.
>
>You have stated that, but you have not shown the Alexandrian Text to
>be "corrupt." You have given opinions, but not never demonstrated any
>fact.
>
>>Your NKJV
>>is mostly based on the Majority Texts, with some
>>reference to the Alexandrian Text. Mostly just
>>some annoying "the most reliable texts say..."
>>garbage.
>
>Another OPINION of yours, that the most reliable texts are garbage.
>Again, no EVIDENCE of any corruption; JUST OPINION.
>
>>I use the NKJV myself.
Website exposing what is wrong with the nkjv
http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm
The Thomas Nelson version you might call it.
What did the NKJV omit is:
Lord 66 times.
God 51 times.
Heaven 50 times.
Hell 22 times.
Blood 23 times.
Repent 44 times.
The NKJV is not new! The changes are already in any modern versions such as
NIV, NASB, etc. And The NKJV is certainly not true to the old KJV.
According to Dr. Reagan:
V--THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS
Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised
but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although
there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one
is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to
justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James
Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda
ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly
four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form,
the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English- speaking
peoples of the world." In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly
imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have
been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been
stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we
will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.
An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James
Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order
to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor, etc.) were
not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600
alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in
the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change,
you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were
identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the
number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an
updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the
fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of
revisions. Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only
400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional
changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than
the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous!
Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of
the alterations is serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless
enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New
King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of
the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those
places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas,
the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful
alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first;
then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading
as found in the New King James Version.
1:13 sore travail; grievous task
1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind
1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great
wisdom
2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with
2:3 acquainting; guiding
2:21 equity; skill
3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task
3:11 the world; eternity
3:18 that might manifest them; God tests them
3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts
3:22 portion; heritage
4:4 right work; skillful work
5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently
5:6 the angel; the messenger of God
5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official
5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy
6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child
7:29 inventions; schemes
8:1 boldness; sternness
8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness
10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a
stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment
10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull
10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success
12:9 gave good heed; pondered
12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars
This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done.
Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world
becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like
a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that
is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher official").
But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must
be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the
most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where
"the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King
James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one
Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become
the source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like
us to think, but it is not true.
In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former
revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new
translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not
to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to
expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist
circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New
King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation
of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version
since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such
revisions.
The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major
revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of
what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson
Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has
not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the
Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the
English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first
printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King
James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary
accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text.
Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the
power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have
His Word.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Yan Zech
"stone" <anti...@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:43571...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
> Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly
> formed
> roman catholic church,
You are a fu*k&liar.
About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and
organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in
Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred Scriptures
made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment.
Yan Zech
> almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
> was a lesser God.]
> 1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
> Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with
> his
> personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
> Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
> church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had
> already
> removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts.
> Jerome
> later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
You fuc*&liar.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the
third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the
Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a
furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.
He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek
manuscripts that included it.
The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which
the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it
made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman
Catholic Church.
chri...@fiberpipe.net
Acts 11:25-26
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was
that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a
great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in
Antioch
NKJV
Acts 11:26
26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole
year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of
people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch
NIV
>The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian
>missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed
>the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
Nice THEORY, but no CITABLE REFERENCES GIVEN. Nothing more than an
empty claim.
>The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
>Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed
>roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with
>Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted
>form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to
>make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek
>manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch.
>[Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God
>almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
>was a lesser God.]
Nice OPINION, but no CITABLE REFERENCES GIVEN. Nothing more than an
empty claim.
>1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
>Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his
>personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
>Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
>church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already
>removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome
>later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
>So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the
>original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th
>century.
>Eusebius was known to be a "Liar for God" and a forger of documents and to
>quote him - "We shall introduce into this history in general only those
>events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
>(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).
So now you claim "Ecclesiastical History, Vol 8, chapter 2," no
publisher, no author, and not a quote, but YOUR twist on it.
Is this 1.The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus[[2]], or
is it some OTHER "Ecclesiastical History?"
IF you are going to give citations, give REAL citations, not
incomplete, uncheckable ones.
>
>1 John 5:7 is not in the Alexandrian text. A gnostic heretic or egyptian
>philosopher that didn't believe in the trinity removed that verse in the 4th
>century.
>1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the
>scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the
>Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
>You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were
>made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian
>faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real
>Christians.
I <snipped> the link to the kjv-onlier webpage which had a chart
comparing the kjv with other translations BUT NOT TO ANY GREEK TEXT AT
ALL on its front page. Pretending the kjv is the "measuring stick" is
completely stupid since the kjv is a translation from Greek.
Comparisons should be made the original language, not to a translation
that like all translations contains errors.
>Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
>The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
<snipped YOUR list in which you claim that the Alexandrian texts (the
Alexandrian texts are FAR from modern, being older than the Erasmus'
texts that were used in the kjv) "attack doctrines."
Such a bogus claim you make! Instead of comparing the passages you
"claim" attack the doctrines you "claim" they attack by looking at the
language of the original language texts, you merely put "SPIN" on the
English translations you don't like.
There is NO EVIDENCE GIVEN in your post that even ONE of those texts
are incorrectly translated, let alone that they "attack" anything at
all. NOTHING IS OFFERED EXCEPT YOUR "SPIN." NOT ONE SHRED OF
EVIDENCE OF ANY MISTRANSLATION OR "CORRUPTION."
>
>There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible
>versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the
>Christian faith.
If they are like you have given, they are linguistically dishonest and
pathological.
>
>Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
>AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English
>Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC)
>NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New
>International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King
>James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised
>Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's
>English Version (Good News For Modern Man)
So far you have NOT SHOWN THAT EVEN ONE OF THESE IS "CORRUPTED."
You've only given us "spin."
So don't later on claim you have "proved" the texts to be corrupt.
You have NOT. You have not shown ONE SINGLE PLACE WHERE THE GREEK
TEXTS WERE ACTUALLY CHANGED, or ONE SINGLE PLACE WHERE THESE
TRANSLATIONS ARE INCORRECTLY TRANSLATED.
Until you do, you are just blowing smoke!
>
>The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of
>the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by
>Bible believing Christians down through the centuries.
Hmm. Erasmus put his first text together from SCRAPS (all that was
available to him at that time) in July, 1515. Until then most Bibles
were translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
Better try again.
>The King James was
>translated from these manuscripts.
Not true. The kjv NT was translated solely from Erasmus 3, and
Erasmus 4, published in 1522, and in 1551 respectively. No other
Greek New Testament texts were available to them.
>There are 5,309 surviving Greek
>manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts
>agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences
>between the King James and the modern versions.
AFTER the kjv translation was finished, BUT BEFORE Textus Receptus
(which was FIRST published in its FIRST FORM in 1633), there were 19
MORE REVISIONS.
So WHICH Greek text is the "correct" one? Erasmus 1? 2? 3? 4? 5?
Any of the Beza texts? The Elzevir family? WHICH of these VERY
distinct from each other texts is "right?" And WHY do you think so?
Give US some good and CITED checkable reasons to beleive you.
SO FAR YOU HAVE GIVEN NONE.
>The textus receptus, King
>James,
Textus Receptus = FIRST PUBLISHED 1633, never before.
KJV translation = FIRST PUBLISHED 1611, was NOT taken from the Textus
Receptus, but was taken from two Greek texts 20 REVISIONS BEFORE TR.
>does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from
>Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question.
Since they were not available to the kjv translators, they didn't use
them. SO FAR YOU HAVE GIVEN US NO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR "CORRUPTION"
CLAIMS. NONE AT ALL.
Just claptrap from a kjv-onlier webpage you gave us a link for that
had on its front page a chart supposedly showing "corruption" based
upon a comparison of the kjv to other translations, using the kjv as a
"standard," which is linguistically DISHONEST, and logically
fallacious.
>Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the
>textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
And examination of MANY MORE manuscripts and partials.
>The modern
>versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of
>the surviving Greek manuscripts.
Pure nonsense! They used it because some of the texts reflected in it
do date back almost as old as Sinaiticus.
>The problem is that when the textus
>receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these
>corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5%
>corruption in the modern versions.
How do you deal with the fact that there is over 5% DISAGREEMENT
between the 5,300 +- texts you are claiming "agree with" TR (whichever
version you think you are referring to)?
NO TWO TEXTS ANYWHERE I CAN FIND are without their variants.
SHOW ME ANY TWO TEXTS YOU CLAIM that agree 100%, then tell us how you
know.
>Where the textus receptus and the
>vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD
>or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The
>vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the
>gospels alone.)
How do you know? Did YOU count? Or are you merely accepting the
OPINIONS of kjv-onliers who depend upon the OPINIONS of kjv-onliers
who depend upon the OPINIONS of kjv-onliers who depend upon the
OPINIONS of kjv-onliers who depend upon the OPINIONS of kjv-onliers
who depend upon the OPINIONS of kjv-onliers who depend upon the kjv
onliers they want to quote (and often embelish with larger numbers?)?
I am willing to guess that your 95% statistics and your 3,000 times
statistic are all "statistics" made up on the spot, and that you have
NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUCH THINGS.
>The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been
>passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians.
IF you are claiming 100% agreement, you are committing fraud. If you
are claiming 95%, you are probably doing likewise.
The FACT is that you probably have not done a shred of the actual
homework yourself and are depending upon comic books like chick
publications (I'll snip the link to the idiot page when I get there)
for your "information."
I have seen some of chick's comic book publications. They are poorly
done, are logically fallacious, and in many cases just flat-out
dishonest.
>In
>1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received
>text, from these manuscripts.
Erasmus published his first text from SCRAPS, part of which was
"re-translated" into Greek from Jerome's Latin Vulgate because his
SCRAPS didn't have ANY text for those parts in March, 1516.
He published 4 REVISIONS (CORRECTIONS) over the following years, then
there were 19 FURTHER REVISIONS (CORRECTIONS) after that, the LAST OF
THOSE CORRECTIONS BEING CALLED, "Textus Receptus" or RECEIVED TEXT.
>This is the text that the protestants of the
>reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was
>translated.
The kjv was translated from Erasmus 3 and Erasmus 4, NOT Textus
Receptus, which was FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1633.
>
>John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
>Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words
>are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are
>frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole
>clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause
>preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
>The above is excerpts from the book:
I <snipped the rest of your post> which was mostly quotations from a
kjv-onlier, provided by your chick publications.
If you cannot do your own homework, don't expect us to bother
shuffling through arguments we have already seen and shuffled through
before with other people.
It was not uncommon for words to be dropped, letters to be dropped, or
a line to be skipped. Hand-copiers were hand-copiers.
That is why EVERY SINGLE NT GREEK TEXT IS DIFFERENT and no two agree
100%. That is why Erasmus made 6 DIFFERENT versions, and 19 MORE
DIFFERENT VERSIONS were made before the Textus Receptus became TR.
Your whole argument is fallacious, and YOU STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN US ONE
SINGLE CITABLE CHECKABLE REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR "SPIN" THAT EVEN ONE
GREEK TEXT OR ENGLISH TEXT IS "CORRUPT."
But knowing you, you will now claim you have "proved your case."
Go figure. . .
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
chri...@fiberpipe.net
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>
But 322 AD IS the "4th century," that is how we count time.
And that statement he made IS TRUE.
What part of it don't you like? 4th century? Bibles? roman catholic
church?
Constantine? Roman? Eusebius? Caesarea? 50?
What parts do you disagree with?
Why would you call him a liar about this fact?
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
chri...@fiberpipe.net
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>
>"stone" <anti...@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
>news:43571...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
>> [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God
>> almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus
>> was a lesser God.]
>> 1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that
>> Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with
>> his
>> personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from
>> Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic
>> church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had
>> already
>> removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts.
>> Jerome
>> later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
>
>You fuc*&liar.
>The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the
>third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the
>Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a
>furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.
>He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek
>manuscripts that included it.
It was put in because his friend "manufactured" codex 61, and he
believed it to be authentic. When he found out it was manufactured as
a joke, he took it back out in his next revision.
>The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which
>the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it
>made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman
>Catholic Church.
>
Nonsense.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Yan Zech
<chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
news:lftfl1pi72kfbg8hm...@4ax.com...
> "Yan Zech" <Dicke...@news.net>, wrote in message:
>>
>>"stone" <anti...@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:43571...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
>>> The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
>>> Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly
>>> formed roman catholic church,
>>
>>You are a fu*k&liar.
>>About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and
>>organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in
>>Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred
>>Scriptures
>>made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared parchment.
>>
> Oooooooooooooh I am SO IMPRESSED by your swearing!
>
> But 322 AD IS the "4th century," that is how we count time.
>
> And that statement he made IS TRUE.
>
> What part of it don't you like? 4th century? Bibles? roman catholic
> church?
> Constantine? Roman? Eusebius? Caesarea? 50?
>
> What parts do you disagree with?
>
> Why would you call him a liar about this fact?
''... 50 Bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church,", is a lie. Jack
Chick idiocies.
>
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian
chri...@fiberpipe.net
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
>
the newly formed roman catholic church," do you see as a lie?
The 50 Bibles?
The catholic church?
What?
There is no roman catholic church recorded in history that I know of
before 322 AD.
Not in the writings of the early church fathers.
CERTAINLY not in the Scriptures that became our Bible.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Yan Zech
<chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
news:d6dgl1du2cr3104i8...@4ax.com...
Constantine directed Eusebius to have prepared for the churches in
Constantinople fifty copies "of the sacred scriptures which you know to be
especially necessary for the restoration and use in the instruction of the
church."
> The catholic church?
>
> What?
>
> There is no roman catholic church recorded in history that I know of
> before 322 AD.
>
There never was.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a
relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the
English language.
> Not in the writings of the early church fathers.
>
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near
East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred
there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr
wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he
made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He
wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the
Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun
when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
> CERTAINLY not in the Scriptures that became our Bible.
>
The terms 'Protestant or Baptist church' are not found in the NIV or KJV
Bible translations. Are you surprised? :-)
http://www.chick.com/default.asp Try Chick's babble.
Bigotry means being
intolerant of the beliefs of others. The definition
makes no judgment about who is wrong and who
is right.
Most posters on these newsgroups practice bigotry every day.
In Christ Jesus?
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian
Agent 007
KJV because it is closest to the original English translation, Tynsdale's
Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
changed going from English translation to another English translation to
another. Tynsdale translated the first English version, although never
quite completed, therefore it is is the most accurate and the KJV was
commissioned by the King to be translated
Agent 007
"Yan Zech" <Dicke...@news.net> wrote in message
news:MJF5f.11467$ns3.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Constantine was the one who carried out the Sunday change and amazingly, he
is the one who started persecuting the Chrisitians. He was never a
converted man.
From a historical perspective and non-biased source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
Agent 007
"Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
news:11lj98t...@news.supernews.com...
Last of All
wrote:
>Sorry, meant Tyndale.
>
Better, but the reason it's close to the Tyndale is the KJV NT is
basically the Tyndale version.
Although I personally do use the KJV, there were several problems
including:
1. It was commissioned as an end run around the Puritans and the
Geneva Bible (because James didn't like that some foornotes in the
Geneva Bible suggested it was ok to disobey an evil king (and he was
bisexual)
2. Many of the translators were personally involved in the
interrogation, torture, imprisonment and executions of Puritans.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
Stephen Korsman
>
> "Yan Zech" <Dicke...@news.net> wrote in message
> news:MJF5f.11467$ns3.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > "stone" <anti...@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:43571...@news1.uncensored-news.com...
> >> The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named
> >> Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly
> >> formed
> >> roman catholic church,
> >
> > You are a fu*k&liar.
> > About the year 322 CE, the emperor Constantine, wishing to promote and
> > organize Christian worship in the growing number of churches in
> > Constantinople, directed Eusebius to have 50 copies of the sacred
> > Scriptures made by practiced scribes and written legibly on prepared
> > parchment.
> >
>
> Constantine was the one who carried out the Sunday change and amazingly,
he
> is the one who started persecuting the Chrisitians.
Sunday observance was around long before Constantine, and Nero persecuted
Christians long before Constantine.
Samuele Bacchiocchi writes on the origin of Sunday and Ellen White:
What is problematic is the impression many people get from EGW's statements
that the Sabbath was observed "by all Christians . . . in the first
centuries" until "the early part of the fourth century [when] the emperor
Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public holiday." (pp. 52-53) ...
The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135
and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was
already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to
be historically accurate the term "centuries" should be changed to the
singular "century."
-- http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html
Ellen White:
"It was on behalf of Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims;
and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance
of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" (page 447)
"Royal edicts, general councils, and church ordinances sustained by secular
power were the steps by which the pagan festival [day of the Sun] attained
its position of honor in the Christian world." (page 574)
And Dr Bacchiocchi's rebuttal:
Both statements just cited are inaccurate, because the secular power of the
state did not influence or compel Christians to adopt Sunday during the
second and third centuries. At that time the Roman emperors were rather
hostile toward Christianity. They were more interested to suppress
Christianity than to support church leaders in their promotion of Sunday
worship. The bishop of Rome could not have resorted to "the power of the
state to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's Day.'" Eventually,
beginning with the fourth century, some Roman emperors actively supported
the agenda of the church, but this was long after the establishment of
Sunday observance.
Bacchiocchi is presenting a more realistic view of the history of Sunday
observance than Ellen White did. No educated historian takes the claim that
the pope change the Sabbath seriously. The fact is that Sunday was kept by
Christians long before Sylvester, long before Constantine.
Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD: let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day
as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of
the week.
- Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.
The Epistle of Barnabas, 70-120 AD: Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth
day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared
ascended into heaven.
- The Epistle of Barnabas, section 15, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1,
pg. 147
Justin Martyr, 150 AD: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common
assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on
the same day rose from the dead.
- First apology of Justin, Ch 68
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
>
> KJV because it is closest to the original English translation, Tynsdale's
> Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
> changed going from English translation to another English translation to
> another. Tynsdale translated the first English version
The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
*therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
> although never
Yan Zech
day of required rest), rather than the Sabbath.
Ever heard of the 'SABBATH FAST'? Search the web and read about it. Jews
don't fast on Sabbath.
What do you mean by other Christians? They called them heretics in those
days. :-) You probably consider them heretics as well. So what's the joke?
I read the web site you suggested. It's good. Fuc*in liarAntiaging prefer
Jack Chick's web pages. His source for his posts. :-)
>
Agent 007
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:MoednRKLG_v...@is.co.za...
I am not sure how I feel about Samuele Bacchiocchi. I don't know enough
about him, but my understanding was he was trained in Catholic schools.
Also, whatever HE says, I am not his follower, but follow the Bible. Martin
Luther also did not keep Sabbath, but I believe he will be among the saved
when Jesus comes for the second time. I do know from history, that it was
Constantine who integrated Christianity and Paganism. Now it is up to
anyone to choose who they should follow, but you have to choose. It must be
one of the other, not both.
I am sure many people persecuted many others, but the fruit of the Spirit
does not bring forth murder. Saul persecuted and then was converted and
became Paul. But Constantine never showed any real conversion and the
things he did, he did for his own glory. How can anyone follow the things
he did, when he never showed he had the fruit of the Spirit of God.
Agent 007
Most secondary Christians, plainly means, the traditions of men. I don't
base my beliefs on what other men do, because there is no safety in that.
Also, in creation, they were clearly days, so the Sabbath day was also a
day.
Luke 16
17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law
to fail.
Talking about the end of time, still no change, it's still a Sabbath day.
Matthew 24
20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath
day:
(still keeping Sabbath after Christ's death)
Mark 16
1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint
him.
The website I suggested was PBS. Public Broadcasting. It was telling you
history, not some religiously biased website. I don't know anything about
Jack Chick. If you want to ignore history, then so be it, but I showed you.
James 5:12
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by
the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay,
nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Agent 007
"Last of All" <Last...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ujajl1ltrpcaocg34...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:53:13 -0700, "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, meant Tyndale.
>>
>
> Better, but the reason it's close to the Tyndale is the KJV NT is
> basically the Tyndale version.
>
> Although I personally do use the KJV, there were several problems
> including:
>
> 1. It was commissioned as an end run around the Puritans and the
> Geneva Bible (because James didn't like that some foornotes in the
> Geneva Bible suggested it was ok to disobey an evil king (and he was
> bisexual)
>
> 2. Many of the translators were personally involved in the
> interrogation, torture, imprisonment and executions of Puritans.
I am sure none of them are perfect. Which version do you use?
Agent 007
>
> "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
> news:11lj98t...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> KJV because it is closest to the original English translation, Tynsdale's
>> Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
>> changed going from English translation to another English translation to
>> another. Tynsdale translated the first English version
>
> The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
>
> Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
> *therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
> original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
The Catholic church also had the Bible chained up. ;-)
You are "correct" in your last paragraph. Finally something we agree upon.
As close to the original meaning as possible. From there we leave it up to
God to direct us in the way we need to go.
Stephen Korsman
He went to Gregorian University in Rome to study the Vatican's records on
the Sabbath. Is that a bad thing?
> Also, whatever HE says, I am not his follower, but follow the Bible.
Martin
> Luther also did not keep Sabbath, but I believe he will be among the saved
> when Jesus comes for the second time. I do know from history, that it was
> Constantine who integrated Christianity and Paganism.
If Sunday observance is pagan, which it isn't, then that came in at least
200 years before Constantine. The Trinity was formulated by Catholic
bishops at the time of Constantine, but it was being taught before this, and
most Protestants consider it to be biblical. Christmas and Easter came
long before Constantine too. So did baptism, and the belief that Jesus rose
from the dead. Just because there are similarities between Christianity and
paganism, such as baptism, communion, the Trinity, etc., doesn't mean
Christianity is half pagan.
Stephen Korsman
No safety in following the practices of the Apostles?
> Also, in creation, they were clearly days, so the Sabbath day was also a
> day.
> Luke 16
> 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the
law
> to fail.
Yet the law has changed. Circumcision, the Levitical priesthood, for
instance. I'll post a follow-up for this.
> Talking about the end of time, still no change, it's still a Sabbath day.
> Matthew 24
> 20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath
> day:
>
> (still keeping Sabbath after Christ's death)
Yes, the unbelieving Jews would be keeping it. I'll post a follow-up for
this.
> Mark 16
> 1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
> James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and
anoint
> him.
This was before the resurrection. After Jesus rose from the dead, we no
longer see the Bible mentioning that Christians keep the Sabbath, or that
they should keep it.
Stephen Korsman
> Luke 16
> 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the
law
> to fail.
>
> Talking about the end of time, still no change, it's still a Sabbath day.
Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17
(Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
(Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
(Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail.
Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position.
Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is
fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled. Let's
look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts
15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law
for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.)
Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words
straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the
heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth in
that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has
changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did we
just miss the end of the world, or not?
Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we assume
it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in the
linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John 19:28-30,
where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED. So, if all was fulfilled
THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that is
exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came at the
END of an age ... so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can interpret
the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that time
understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A new
creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor 15:22+45,
and Eph 2:10.
2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new
creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." Galatians 6:15
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation." 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 "For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam
became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." (RSV)
So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth really
passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote the
Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try to
mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that the
original was not written in English, and the people of the time did not have
the same idiomatic expressions.
For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is wrong
... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS indeed
completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the prophets
lasted until John the Baptist.
Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual
covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual
covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never come
to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet although we
are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians. The
same goes for the Sabbath.
So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove from
the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law HAS
passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit, and
place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.
Stephen Korsman
> Matthew 24
> 20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath
> day:
>
> (still keeping Sabbath after Christ's death)
Matt 24:20
Mat 24:3-21 KJV:
(3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be
the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(4) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
you.
(5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive
many.
(6) And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not
troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
(7) For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and
there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
(8) All these are the beginning of sorrows.
(9) Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and
ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
(10) And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and
shall hate one another.
(11) And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
(12) And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
(13) But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
(14) And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him
understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:
(17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of
his house:
(18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
(20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath day:
(21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Adventists and other Sabbath observers claim that verse 20 in this passage
shows that Jesus foretold the keeping of the Sabbath by Christians. To walk
too far on the Sabbath was to break the Sabbath, and Christians should pray
not to break the Sabbath by having to flee Jerusalem on that day. Even
today, several of these groups frown on walking an excessive distance, and
consider it to be work, and therefore constituting a breaking of the Sabbath
commandment.
But is that really what Jesus meant? He, who permitted the saving of a
sheep's life on the Sabbath by pulling it from a pit, who told the paralysed
man to get up and carry away his bed on the Sabbath, said we should pray not
to have to break the Sabbath by saving our own lives? Isn't that just a
little absurd?
To get to an understanding of what Jesus really meant, all we need to do to
find the answer is look at history, and look at the other examples Jesus
uses in that verse, and then examine the actual context - what was Jesus
really talking about?
This prophecy refers primarily to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but may
also refer to future events near the end of time.
First, Jesus knew that the Pharisees locked the gates to Jerusalem on the
Sabbath to prevent people from walking too far, which was considered work.
Therefore, anyone in Jerusalem at the time the Romans attacked, if that day
were a Sabbath, would be locked in and would not be able to flee. The same
would happen throughout Judaea, and where there were no city gates, they
would find pharisaical Jews obstructing them.
Jesus cannot be telling us that we may not save our lives by fleeing on the
Sabbath, because he himself said we could heal on the Sabbath. So if Sabbath
keepers were following his own example, they would not have a problem with
saving their lives by fleeing on the Sabbath - they would have a proper
perspective, and have no qualms with running away. Jesus knew that the gates
would be locked on the Sabbath and they would not be able to escape - and
this is why they had to be concerned, but because it was contrary to God's
law to walk too far to save your life on that day.
Second, we get to the other examples of things they should hope/pray to
avoid. If we draw a parallel between them, and compare them, we see they all
follow the same pattern. Winter ... a physical problem making travel
unpleasant and difficult and more dangerous due to extreme cold, not
disobedience to God's law if they travelled in winter. Pregnancy ... the
further into pregnancy you go, the more difficult it becomes to run, hide,
and sleep in the bush - a physical problem, and not disobedience to God's
law to travel while pregnant. Having a young child - they are difficult to
control, to care for, and are more vulnerable to the elements, and no parent
would want to put a child through the physical and emotional trauma of
running away from soldiers - again, a physical problem, and not disobedience
to God. So ... when we get to the Sabbath, do we classify it as a physical
problem (locked gates, obstruction by the Jews) or do we really believe that
Christ is saying that his followers should pray not to have to offend him by
fleeing certain death on the Sabbath, when Jesus told the Jews it was not
unlawful to heal and save lives and even pick grain or fish a sheep out of a
hole on the Sabbath?
Is Jesus really upholding the laws of the Pharisees here, and are we
expected to live by these laws too?
I believe that the Adventist position goes against the principle of the
Gospel. Jesus was not contradicting his own teaching, and proclaiming that
we should worry about breaking the Sabbath by fleeing for our lives. He was
simply being practical. So, then, should we.
Stephen Korsman
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:MoednROLG_v...@is.co.za...
> >
> > "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
> > news:11lj98t...@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> KJV because it is closest to the original English translation,
Tynsdale's
> >> Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
> >> changed going from English translation to another English translation
to
> >> another. Tynsdale translated the first English version
> >
> > The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
> >
> > Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
> > *therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
> > original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
>
> The Catholic church also had the Bible chained up. ;-)
So would Adventists today, if Bibles cost as much as a house, and most
people couldn't read them. Don't criticise others for what you would do if
you were in their circumstances.
havoc
>
> If Sunday observance is pagan, which it isn't, then that came in at least
> 200 years before Constantine. The Trinity was formulated by Catholic
> bishops at the time of Constantine, but it was being taught before this, and
> most Protestants consider it to be biblical. Christmas and Easter came
> long before Constantine too. So did baptism, and the belief that Jesus rose
> from the dead. Just because there are similarities between Christianity and
> paganism, such as baptism, communion, the Trinity, etc., doesn't mean
> Christianity is half pagan.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
My understanding from my reading is that Constantine was nothing if not
a pagan using the appearance of Christianity for political gain.
Eusebius is worthless on the matter in that to the extent he says
anything, he seems to have no problem with inventing history and taking
fictional licenses that remove him from the realm of history and put him
on par with Stephen King for inventiveness - were he on par for writing
skill he might also be a good read.
That said, one can make a baseline judgement with regard to Constantine
and Catholicism by reviewing the episodes surrounding Arius and the
Donatists. Constantine tried to settle the matter of the Arians for
political expedience. He didn't care about the church, he cared about
his imperial standing. He'd surrounded himselves with Arians and he
defended Arius - seeking to gain acceptance of watered down language on
the matter being contested. It was rather the Bishops who stuck by the
hardline of proper language. This would seem to put a feather in the
cap of the Bishops. Constantine, seeing he'd lost that battle, was
still emperor and rather than putting Arius to death, he exiled him.
This would tend to destroy Catholic claims I've read enlessly about the
Great Constantine purifying the Church.. He did nothing of the sort.
With regard to the Donatists, the principle concern Constantine had was
that they were at the heart of a storm over doctrine just as had been
the Arians. The problem with the Donatists, if one reads, is that
during persecutions prior, Christians had been charged by Rome to
surrender their scriptures and pay homage to the Roman Gods. Many sects
that would make up Catholicism had done so. The Donatists properly
pointed out the outright blatently sinful nature of this. And the sects
jointly moved to silence the Donatists. Being unable to do so, they
emplred the eperor to do it for them. Constantine obliged reluctantly
and chased the Donatists from pillar to post; but, gave up the pursuit
over time and never succeeded in destroying them as I had read..
instead, The Donatists outlived Constantine.
Much has been attempted to be made of the Arians and Donatists by
Catholicism - apparently in trying to redeem themselves from the truth.
The truth, however, is without repentance. And where ever you go,
whatever you do, be sure it will find you out. It has found out
Constantine, and with him the people that insist on lying about him for
their own reasons.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
of (probably irrelevant) errors that have crept in, no doubt in good
fait?
havoc wrote:
> My understanding from my reading is that Constantine was nothing if not
> a pagan using the appearance of Christianity for political gain.
This allegation was manufactured in the 1850's, as part of a campaign
to undermine the Hapsburg emperor, who drew his historical legitimacy
ultimately from Constantine and the idea of Christian empire. A look
at his acts and legislation suggests a convinced enthusiast, albeit a
brutal man (as all late emperors were).
> Eusebius is worthless on the matter in that to the extent he says
> anything, he seems to have no problem with inventing history and taking
> fictional licenses that remove him from the realm of history and put him
> on par with Stephen King for inventiveness - were he on par for writing
> skill he might also be a good read.
I'm afraid that these slurs on Eusebius were manufactured by Edward
Gibbon in 'Decline and Fall,' and reused by the anti-Hapsburgs, because
Eusebius gives us so much information about Constantine. But they are
not in fact true. Gibbon's real opinion of Eusebius may be discovered
from the fact that he bases the chapter in which he insinuates this
allegation almost entirely on the testimony of Eusebius.
> This would tend to destroy Catholic claims I've read enlessly about the
> Great Constantine purifying the Church.. He did nothing of the sort.
I think he tried!
> With regard to the Donatists, the principle concern Constantine ...
IIRC Donatism did not become a serious issue until well after this
period. Persecution of the Donatists was undertaken under Honorius,
not under Constantine, with the reluctant aquiescence of Augustine.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Pastor Dave
<skor...@theotoko.co.za> spake thusly:
>> > The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
>> >
>> > Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
>> > *therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
>> > original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
>>
>> The Catholic church also had the Bible chained up. ;-)
>
>So would Adventists today, if Bibles cost as much as a house, and most
>people couldn't read them. Don't criticise others for what you would do if
>you were in their circumstances.
Huh? Pardon the interruption, but I am not clear on what
you're trying to get across.by that statement.
As for the texts, the difference is that the NIV is not
based on the same texts as the KJV.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give you as a Light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.
- Israel 49:6
Zadok
"Stephen Korsman" <> again shows his lack of understanding...
> Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position.
> Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is
> fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled.
Immediately we note that he says THIS IMPLIES!!
Let's
> look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and
Acts
> 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual
law
> for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.)
> Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words
> straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the
> heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth
in
> that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has
> changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did we
> just miss the end of the world, or not?
Why would we look at Paul's writings?? What we should be looking at is the
words of the Saviour. Not the words of a man!!
And the only text Stevie quotes is John 19: 28-30. But hey lets back up
there - as Stevie knows context is everything. Just before that in verses
26-29, Jesus supposedly gives the custody of his mother to the disciple he
loved. Then he says he is thirsty. Finally he says that all has been
accomplished, or if you will fulfilled.
But what has been fulfilled? Most people think that it is OT prophecy of
Jesus being sacrificed for our sins!!
Stevie then likes to take an actual command of Jesus, that not one little
bit of the law will pass, until Heaven and Earth pass away, and try and say
that they did pass away, to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth!!
Why was nothing ever noticed and reported on. Surely if Heaven and earth had
passed away, someone would have noticed.
But NO!! Stevie backs that up with statements from Paul, that Jesus brought
in a new faith. And nothing Jesus ever said, will back that up.
Constantly Jesus harps on the fact that you have to leep the law.
Go to Bible Gateway, and do a new testament search on the word COMMANDMENTS,
I'll only list a few:
Matthew 19: 17 -And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments.
Luke 1: 6 - And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
John 14: 15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14: 21 - He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that
loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will
love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 15: 10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even
as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Go to 1 John and read:
1 John 2: 3 and 4 -
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.4 He
that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the
truth is not in him.
1 John 3: 22 - And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep
his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
Go right on to Revelation -
Revelation 12: 17 - And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to
make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God,
and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Again in Revelation 14: 12 - Here is the patience of the saints: here are
they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 22: 14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they
may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into
the city.
Isn't that amazing. They all stress keeping the commandments.
Lets look at James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and the brother of the
Lord.
James 2: 10 - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all.
Read in Acts 21: 20 - And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and
said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are
which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Again, you totally ignore all the bible statements to keep the commandments.
You ignore even Jesus saying that.
And your excuse is this idea that somehow the Earth and Heaven passed away,
and were replaced and no one knew it!!
Paul is not talking about an actaul new heaven and earth, but only that we
have a new vision of it. It's allegorical you clown!!
>
> For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is wrong
> ... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS
indeed
> completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the prophets
> lasted until John the Baptist.
But you totally ignore that in Luke 16: 17, Jesus goes right on and repeats
Matthew 5:
Luke 16: 17 - And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail.
Why would Jesus turn around and say that, if the law ended with John the
Baptist??
> Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual
> covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
> Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual
> covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
> called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never
come
> to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet although we
> are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians.
See again you twist it to suit yourself. In Acts 15, James in his letter
mentions nothing about the Sabbath. He only mentions circumcision and
dietary laws.
What always amazes me, is how you religionists like to ignore passages.
The
> same goes for the Sabbath.
>
> So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove from
> the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law HAS
> passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit, and
> place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.
And finally the simpliest way to prove that the religiuonists are wrong.
If ALL HAS BEEN FULFILLED and THE LAW HAS PASSED AWAY.
Then none of the commandments are still in effect. They are all gone.
Therefore Adultery is no longer a sin. We can have more than one God.
There is no Law of God against stealing.
BUT!! Now the religionists will come back, and say, NO, NO, that is not
right.
Make up your minds religionists. If you make the argument that the Law was
cancelled with the death of Jesus, you can't pick and choose what ones you
want to keep.
What is it?? Are they all gone?? Or are they still in effect??
If they are all gone, then there is no law against homosexuals, is there??
And that is the JOKE of Stevie's position!!
Yan Zech
You are trying to prove that your religion is better than that of others.
You sound very insecure.
Let me just say here that the Jewish Sabbath and circumcision certainly
existed before Genesis was ever written. It was probably observed by the
Jew's forefathers the Canaanites.Your conviction that the Sabbath was given
to the Jews at creation is total bullshit. Genesis is a theology not a
historical account.
Last of All
wrote:
>
>"Last of All" <Last...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:ujajl1ltrpcaocg34...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:53:13 -0700, "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, meant Tyndale.
>>>
>>
>> Better, but the reason it's close to the Tyndale is the KJV NT is
>> basically the Tyndale version.
>>
>> Although I personally do use the KJV, there were several problems
>> including:
>>
>> 1. It was commissioned as an end run around the Puritans and the
>> Geneva Bible (because James didn't like that some foornotes in the
>> Geneva Bible suggested it was ok to disobey an evil king (and he was
>> bisexual)
>>
>> 2. Many of the translators were personally involved in the
>> interrogation, torture, imprisonment and executions of Puritans.
>
>I am sure none of them are perfect. Which version do you use?
>
Notice above --- >> Although I personally do use the KJV,
Of late, I like eSword, I have the KJV, Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale, KJV
1611, and YLT in it and it's easy to compare the different versions.
But, my grand father preached out of the KJV and it's very familiar to
me, have read through it cover to cover many times. But, for
neighbors and such, we generally buy modern English translations at
the thrift shops and have them in the car to give away. My wife works
in a children's home and leaves them behind in doctor's offices,
hospitals and so forth.
SO, I like the KJV, mainly because I'm used to it and because years
back, you could only find reference books geared to the KJV (like
Strongs), but the best version, imho is the one someone will actually
sit and read.
Terrell
DOC WATSON
said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>
>Of late, I like eSword, I have the KJV, Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale, KJV
>1611, and YLT in it and it's easy to compare the different versions.
I LOVE E-Sword!
I find it informative, EASY to download, easy to use, and a terrific
Bible-study program.
To think of the vast number of Bible versions, Bible Dictionaries,
Commentaries, atlases, etc... that a person can download ALL FOR FREE,
it is truly amazing.
Methinks personally, the founder of that program is a genius!
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
Last of All
>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Last of All <Last...@nospam.com>
>said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>
>>
>>Of late, I like eSword, I have the KJV, Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale, KJV
>>1611, and YLT in it and it's easy to compare the different versions.
>
>
>I LOVE E-Sword!
> I find it informative, EASY to download, easy to use, and a terrific
>Bible-study program.
> To think of the vast number of Bible versions, Bible Dictionaries,
>Commentaries, atlases, etc... that a person can download ALL FOR FREE,
>it is truly amazing.
>Methinks personally, the founder of that program is a genius!
Another helpful feature is options 6 and 7 on the Copy Verses menu so
that I can copy chapters into my txt2speech program and not have it
interupt the flow with verse numbers every sentence or so - I haven't
tried txt2speech on the really archaic versions like KJV1611, Tyndale,
Geneva or Bishops - perhaps I wil later - atm I'm having CS Lewis's
Mere CHristianity read to me.
Terrell
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
Agent 007
Christ fulfilled the law that said, the wage of sin is death. The ordinance
and ceremonial law of Moses were done away with, not the ten commandments.
You are completely ignoring the fact that He said , "Think not that I am
come to destroy the law" and "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." So if you really followed that,
you would know that He said the ceremonial law was a shadow of things to
come, meaning, He is now the High Priest and there are no more earthly
priests, so if you are big on this text, you wouldn't be in the Catholic
church. The cross did away with the earthly sanctuary, why else was the
curtain torn in the sanctuary by unseen hands?
If God could have done away with the law, don't you think He would have
rather than having His Son die? That's the only reason Christ died. God's
perfect law could not be changed. It prevents chaos in the universe. The
law is our mirror to show us if we are sinning and if we are sinning, we
know we are not filled with the Spirit of Christ. Being filled with the
Spirit of Christ means the law is on our hearts. We are naturally obeying
the law because our life has been given over to Christ. Obeying the law did
not give us righteousness, only Christ's life and death can do that. But,
once we accept the gift of His grace, we naturally follow the law from our
hearts. The law does not save, Christ's death saves us, but then we follow
the law if Christ is living in us.
Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh:
The law could not save us, because it required the payment of death and only
a life such as Christ could pay that price.
Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
When we accept Christ and ask Him into our hearts, the law is then on our
hearts and we naturally walk in the law, because Christ is living through
us.
Justified by death, but sanctification is the work of a lifetime. We accept
Christ's death and then we walk in the law.
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by
the law of faith.
We are not saved by the law, thus no boasting as to who was a better
follower, but saved by grace.
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of
the law.
Saved by grace, not saved by the law.
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish
the law.
So, if we are saved by grace do we then disobey. No. Our lives reflect
obedience of the law, thus the meaning of circumcision of our hearts. Not
from our own efforts, but by allowing Christ to live through us, it is a
natural thing.
Agent 007
Mercy is what religion and God is all about. So, if we have to travel to
help someone, we do it. If we have to travel to go to DisneyWorld on
Sabbath, no, we don't do it, because we are doing our own thing and not
giving the day over to God. Being merciful and loving and giving and caring
is what God is about. Spreading His word. Easing suffering, taking care of
hunger. If we carried out Sabbath the way the Pharisee's carried it out, we
wouldn't turn our computers on and talk on this newsgroup on Sabbath. But,
we are sharing our faith, so that falls into God's plan. Sabbath is about
honoring God, not keeping the traditions of man, in this case Pharisee's who
would rather a man suffer on Sabbath than for them to break it and help him.
That's not what God is about. God performed miracles on Sabbath and in the
Pharisees eyes that was breaking the Sabbath. Easing suffering honors God.
So, all that aside, where does He preach about Sunday? Why do you keep
Sunday? Where is that command? I see where He commands us to keep Sabbath
because it is a sign between God and His people, but nowhere does He say
keeping Sunday honors him. That is honoring someone else, not God.
Agent 007
Deuteronomy 17:3
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or
moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
Where did God command you to worship on Sunday?
Ezekial 8
13He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater
abominations that they do.
14Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which
was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
15Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet
again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
If you do a search into Paganism, you will see that Tammuz birthday was
December 25th. Also do a search to see what time of year the sheep were out
on the plains at the time and place of Jesus birth. Baal was also a sun
god.
If you are going to be worshipping on Sunday, make sure you understand what
you are worshipping.
Constantine was the first to make a Sunday law. Could people who did not
keep it buy or sell? What happened to them?
You said something about if I had lived in those times I would have
persecuted heretics or I would have chained a Bible. That just is not so.
I know God is not a God of force. God created us with the power of choice
and if we do not come willingly to Him, it means nothing. We have to be
convicted in our hearts that serving Him and honoring His day is the thing
to do.
Collosians 2
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them
openly, triumphing over them in it.
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches
of the saints.
1 Corinthians 11
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the
churches of God.
James 3
15This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual,
devilish.
16For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil
work.
17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without
partiality, and without hypocrisy.
James 1
25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth
therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man
shall be blessed in his deed.
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue,
but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted
from the world.
God wants service to Him because of love, not for us to be forced to serve
Him.
Joshua 24
14Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth:
and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the
flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
15And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day
whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on
the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the
LORD, to serve other gods;
Agent 007
Oh my goodness. It is all over the New Testament after the resurrection.
Do you not know that this very verse is telling about a time after the
resurrection? Remember, they went, and Jesus was not in the tomb. They
were His followers. Don't you think they would know if the Sabbath had been
done away with? Please, give me one text that commands you worship on
Sunday and then show me the ones that command you worship on Sabbath.
Luke 23
55And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after,
and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the
sabbath day according to the commandment.
Acts 23
26Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among
you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew
him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath
day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate
that he should be slain.
Acts 13
41Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: ****for I work a work in
your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it
unto you.****
42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, ****the Gentiles****
(not Jews) besought that these words might be preached to them the ****next
sabbath.****
43Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious
proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them
to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the
word of God.
Acts 16:13
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was
wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted
thither.
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days
reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and
the Greeks.
Agent 007
Matthew 12:8
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Mark 2:28
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Luke 6:5
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
James 1
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue,
but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the
fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted
from the world.
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about
the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but
said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Luke 9:5
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off
the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
Agent 007
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:39:28 -0700, "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Last of All" <Last...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:ujajl1ltrpcaocg34...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:53:13 -0700, "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry, meant Tyndale.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Better, but the reason it's close to the Tyndale is the KJV NT is
>>> basically the Tyndale version.
>>>
>>> Although I personally do use the KJV, there were several problems
>>> including:
>>>
>>> 1. It was commissioned as an end run around the Puritans and the
>>> Geneva Bible (because James didn't like that some foornotes in the
>>> Geneva Bible suggested it was ok to disobey an evil king (and he was
>>> bisexual)
>>>
>>> 2. Many of the translators were personally involved in the
>>> interrogation, torture, imprisonment and executions of Puritans.
>>
>>I am sure none of them are perfect. Which version do you use?
>>
>
> Notice above --- >> Although I personally do use the KJV,
>
> Of late, I like eSword, I have the KJV, Geneva, Bishops, Tyndale, KJV
> 1611, and YLT in it and it's easy to compare the different versions.
I've never heard of eSword.
Who was your grandfather? Just curious. You don't have to say.
Agent 007
>
> "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
> news:11ljkb0...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:MoednROLG_v...@is.co.za...
>> >
>> > "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
>> > news:11lj98t...@news.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> KJV because it is closest to the original English translation,
> Tynsdale's
>> >> Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
>> >> changed going from English translation to another English translation
> to
>> >> another. Tynsdale translated the first English version
>> >
>> > The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
>> >
>> > Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
>> > *therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
>> > original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
>>
>> The Catholic church also had the Bible chained up. ;-)
>
> So would Adventists today, if Bibles cost as much as a house, and most
> people couldn't read them. Don't criticise others for what you would do
> if
> you were in their circumstances.
You can't speak for others. You can only speak for yourself or things you
have witnessed being done. It got copied, didn't it and it cost no one a
house. Also, per capita, Vatican city is the richest city in the world. I
am sure they can spare the change. Did they donate any of it to Katrina?
Last of All
wrote:
eSword is a Bible software program, much of it is freeware although
certain Bible version addons do cost money if you want them -- even
with only the free stuff, it is a phenomenal program, especially for
free .. you can google it if interested.
My grand father was a Southern Baptist preacher who pastored a church
for much of his life in Northern rural Alabama, later in his life, he
began "planting churches" throughout northern Alabama, Tennesee, and
at least one in Ohio and he also had an early Christian radio program
where he would preach onto reel-to-reel and then pay a radio station
to broadcast it.
He was also a machinest for NASA, and, as such, donated his salary as
pastor back to the church. As a machinest, he helped make the special
wrench that they sent up to get the Skylab solar thingy unstuck. One
of his greatest regrets in life was, that as a machinest, at the time,
for Redstone Arsenel, he was deemed "critical to the war effort" in
WWII and not permitted to enlist. He was not famous, but if you are
old enough, you might have seen him on TV holding that wrench before
it was sent up to space.
Agent 007
Interesting story.
Agent 007
Yan Zech
>
> "Yan Zech" <Dicke...@news.net> wrote in message
> news:Vnj6f.12765$ns3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> day of required rest), rather than the Sabbath.
>> Ever heard of the 'SABBATH FAST'? Search the web and read about it. Jews
>> don't fast on Sabbath.
> Most secondary Christians, plainly means, the traditions of men. I don't
> base my beliefs on what other men do, because there is no safety in that.
> Also, in creation, they were clearly days, so the Sabbath day was also a
> day.
I had written ''Most second-century Christians''.
All is tradition, including the Gospels.
Mt. 16:
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that
you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
Hades will not overcome it 19I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom
of heaven; whatever you (Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and
whatever you (Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I know, Protestant Fundamentalists will claim that I'm adding to the Gospel,
I'm not. Could well be some of those verses were added by Constantine. What
do you think? LOL.
Greek Orthodox Saints:
Saint Constantine (the Great)
The son of St. Helen, who became emperor when his father Constantine Chlorus
died in 306.
What's wrong with that? None of our business. :-)
Agent 007
Deuteronomy 32
3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our
God.
4He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God
of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Agent 007
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
1 Corinthians 3
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Deuteronomy 32
3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto
our God.
4He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a
God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Isaiah 51
1Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the
LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit
whence ye are digged.
Matthew 7
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
John 1
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou
art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by
interpretation, A stone.
1 Peter 2
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a
chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not
be confounded.
Ephesians 2
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Isaiah 28
16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a
foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure
foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Psalms 61
2From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is
overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. (rock is heavenly,
not earthly)
Galations 2
9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right
hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the
circumcision.
(About the crucifixion and resurrection - Jesus is the temple or church)
John 2
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up.
Ephesians 4
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,
and gave gifts unto men.
Matthew 28
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth. (not unto Peter)
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (the
preaching is the key to the House of the Lord)
1 Thessalonians 2
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye
received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the
word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually
worketh also in you that believe.
Matthew 16
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was
Jesus the Christ.
John 10
25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do
in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 10
38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may
know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
1 Corinthians 2
8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (if they had studied rather than
take the word of the Pharisees, they would have known)
Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Yan Zech
> Matthew 16
> 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
> build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of
Hades will not overcome it. (NIV)
18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(The Douay).
Many Protestant scholars have come to the conclusion that Peter is indeed
the rock to which Jesus referred. Renowned Protestant theologians such as
Oscar Cullman and Herman Ridderbos have written voluminous works exegeting
Matthew 16:18 in fine detail, showing that classical Protestant exegesis is
full of false assumptions and shortcomings. One of the more salient errors
pointed out by these sources is the Protestant claim that the original Greek
of Matthew 16:18 made a lexical distinction between Peter (Greek: petros)
and rock (Greek: petra). Petros was understood to be a small stone or
pebble, while petra was understood to be a huge, immovable rock, or rocky
cliff. Conclusion: Peter could not be the rock to which Jesus referred,
since it is obvious that a small stone is not a huge, immovable rock. In
discovering more about Greek etymology, however, Protestant scholars learned
that petros and Petra are actually interchangeable terms. Though desiring to
complete the pun and convey assonance, the Gospel writer was simply limited
by the fact that since Peter is a masculine name, it must be designated by a
masculine Greek noun (i.e., petros), whereas petra is a feminine noun.
stone
Stephen Korsman wrote in message ...
>
>"Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
>news:11ljkb0...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:MoednROLG_v...@is.co.za...
>> >
>> > "Agent 007" <Agen...@three.com> wrote in message
>> > news:11lj98t...@news.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> KJV because it is closest to the original English translation,
>Tynsdale's
>> >> Bible, therefore the meaning is in the truest form and not diluted or
>> >> changed going from English translation to another English translation
>to
>> >> another. Tynsdale translated the first English version
You don't seem to understand.
The original unaltered texts in passed down through the centuries and
recopied word for word by the believers are these:
Massoretic text of the Jews for the Old Testament
Byzantine (also called textus receptus for the New Testament
Both the Tyndale and the King James version are both directly translated
from these original unaltered texts. Those texts are the real bible.
Luther's german bible also comes directly from those real bible texts.
In Alexandria Egypt, unbelieving Egyptian philosophers (or gnostic heretics)
changed 5% of the words in both of those texts, producing corrupted bible
texts, in both the Hebrew and greek languages, with 5% of the words changed,
or added or deleted. These corrupted texts, got mixed into all of the
catholic bibles and mostly all of the modern version.
The problem is that the corrupted bibles are translated using corrupted
hebrew and greek manuscripts that came from Alexandria.
5 manuscripts come from Alexandria. They disagree with each other in many
places and disagree with the byzantine (also called majority text) in 5% of
important places.
The disagreements in the manuscripts come from one city, Alexandria, which
means some people in Alexandria were deliberately changing words around.
Wherever the majority text or byzantine text manuscripts were found, and
they were found in several different cities, they all agreed, word for word.
The tyndale bible, the King James version and luther's german bible are all
translated directly from the majority text, which is the real unaltered
scriptures as originally written by the original authors, and translated
into different languages.
>> >
>> > The Catholic Church had English translations before this.
>> >
>> > Besides, that the KJV is closest to the original English translation
>> > *therefore* it is correct isn't logical. It has to be faithful to the
>> > original Greek. (Which the KJV is more than the NIV, it would seem.)
>>
>> The Catholic church also had the Bible chained up. ;-)
>
>So would Adventists today, if Bibles cost as much as a house, and most
>people couldn't read them. Don't criticise others for what you would do if
>you were in their circumstances.
>
>God bless,
>Stephen
>
>--
>Stephen Korsman
>website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
>blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
>IC | XC
>---------
>NI | KA
>
>add an s before .co.za
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Stephen Korsman
No, I did not know that, and checking in my Bible, it shows that this verse
was NOT after the resurrection.
Jesus died on Friday, rose 3 days later on Sunday. There was no Sabbath
after the resurrection where these women visited the tomb. This verse
refers to the Sabbath between the crucifixion and the resurrection. They
went to the tomb the next day, after the Sabbath.
So there is no verse that shows Christian sabbath keeping after the
resurrection.
I've already given you my answers for those other verses ... I'll repeat
them in another post.
Stephen Korsman
>
> Acts 13
>
> 41Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: ****for I work a work
in
> your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare
it
> unto you.****
>
> 42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, ****the
Gentiles****
> (not Jews) besought that these words might be preached to them the
****next
> sabbath.****
>
> 43Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and
religious
> proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded
them
> to continue in the grace of God.
>
> 44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear
the
> word of God.
Act 13:13-44
(Act 13:13) Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to
Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
(Act 13:14) But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in
Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
(Act 13:15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of
the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any
word of exhortation for the people, say on.
(Act 13:16) Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of
Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
(Act 13:26) Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and
whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
(Act 13:27) For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they
knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every
sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
(Act 13:42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles
besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
(Act 13:43) Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and
religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, pers
uaded them to continue in the grace of God.
(Act 13:44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to
hear the word of God.
Here we start looking at texts that Adventists claim show that early
Christians kept the Sabbath. They say that these are Sabbath services, and
since they were attended by Christians, they show that these Christians were
keeping the Sabbath.
Yes, Acts 13 is referring to a Sabbath service, but look where the service
is! Is this a Christian service, organised by Christians, for Christian
worship? Or is this a Jewish service, organised by Jews, for the usual
synagogue service that had been going on in the synagogues for decades prior
to Christ's lifetime? It is not in a Christian home or church, and it is not
a Christian service. It is a Jewish service. History shows us that these
services were not like today's Christian services, where generally Catholics
go to Catholic churches, Methodists to Methodist churches, Baptists to
Baptist churches, etc. It is a historical fact that Jewish services at the
synagogue were not restricted to Jews alone - an entire section of the
synagogue was built to accommodate non-Jews. The people at the time welcomed
any such gathering where religion and morals and philosophy were discussed.
So, naturally, they were attended by Jews and Gentiles alike. And they were
attended by Christians who wanted to introduce their own Christian
perspective on the matters being discussed, in particular doing things like
opening a discussion about prophecies about Christ, and how he fulfilled
various Old Testament passages. Coming out of Judaism, obviously many
Christians still continued their Jewish traditions until they were expelled
from the synagogues.
So, no, by preaching to the Jews and Gentiles in the synagogue on the
Sabbath is NOT Sabbath observance ANY more than Adventists placing tracts on
windscreens of cars at Sunday observing churches is Sunday observance by
Adventists. If an Adventist pastor went to a Catholic service to preach to
Catholics, would there be any point going on a Saturday? No. If he went on a
Sunday, would he be keeping Sunday? No. So you can't claim that Paul was
keeping the Sabbath, simply because he attended a non-Christian service on
that day in order to witness to the non-Christians there.
Where does Acts 13 use the word "worship" in relation to the actions of
Paul? Nowhere - not one of the words used indicates worship by Paul.
The text of Acts 13 itself demonstrates that Paul is NOT observing the
Sabbath. The assumption that his presence in the synagogues on the Sabbath
means his observance of it as a holy day is a mistake Sabbatarians make
because they want to find texts where the Apostles keep the Sabbath. In
fact, there are NO such texts in the entire Bible!
Compare gatherings meant for Christian worship to the gathering Paul is
attending here - Christian worship services are restricted to Christians
only - see Acts 20:7 for one example. What Paul is doing is going to a
Jewish non-Christian service in order to witness to the Jews and Gentiles
there. The services at the synagogues were not attended only by Jews, and
many Gentiles who followed many other religions also went to the synagogue
on the Sabbath - not because they were keeping the Sabbath: they didn't
believe in the Sabbath principle, it wasn't part of their religion. They
went because Saturday was the day of the week when the synagogue was full,
and it was on this day that religious and moral and spiritual and
philosophical principles were preached and discussed. any person - Jew or
Gentile or pagan - would find such an event stimulating, if they were
interested in the deeper meaning of life and moral values. And that is the
reason many non-Jews did attend the synagogue services. The sabbath
gathering of people to the synagogue to discuss matters of religion and
morals and proper lifestyle was not restricted to the Jews, and was a common
public meeting for people to listen to wise counsel.
What a perfect opportunity for Paul and other Christians to witness to both
the Jews and the other people attending. Recognised as a Jew, he could take
part in the discussion right up front, and offer Christian interpretations
of the texts being discussed, and thereby win people to Christ. But nothing,
absolutely nothing in the text even suggests that he attended the synagogue
on this day because he felt obliged to keep the Sabbath holy. His own words
on the matter of the Sabbath in his letters prove that he believed no such
thing - in fact he labels Sabbath keeping a weakness in his letter to the
Romans (chapter 14). He was no more keeping the Sabbath by preaching to the
Jews on the Sabbath than he is keeping any Roman or pagan feasts by using
their gatherings to preach to them, as is recorded in Acts 17, where he
refers to pagan altars which he does not reject, but proclaims that they
actually refer to the one true God. No, these texts do not refer to Paul
keeping the Sabbath. All he did was preach on the Sabbath to people who were
gathered on the Sabbath, just as he would preach on a Tuesday to those who
gathered somewhere on a Tuesday. The Bible says no more than that, and the
context makes it obvious. To read Sabbath observance into these texts is to
add something to the Bible that simply is not there.
Also, the Gentiles flocked to hear the Apostles preach wherever they
preached, Sabbath or otherwise, so naturally one would expect Gentiles to be
present at the synagogue on the Sabbath. They would not be there on Mondays
or Wednesdays because there were no gatherings in the synagogue on these
days when the Apostles could preach.
The Adventists claim that the Apostles were there for worship and Sabbath
observance is faulty for another reason.
(2Co 6:14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath
light with darkness?
(2Co 6:15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel?
(2Co 6:16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and
walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(2Co 6:17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the
Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Are we to believe that, contrary to his own advice, Paul worshipped
alongside unbelievers? Or should we take the text at face value, without
reading a worship service into a text that does not indicate Christian
worship, and without meddling with the context of the text? This passage may
refer to marriage, but how much more it would apply to true worship.
I should reiterate here my response to the commonly used Adventist argument
that they came back again to the Jewish service on the next Sabbath, not the
next day to a Christian service. Because it was a set weekly gathering for
the Jews, obviously if Paul went along on a Sunday, a Monday, a Tuesday,
etc., the place would not have a crowd gathered to listen. It was the Jewish
nature of this gathering that made it happen every Sabbath. And it was
because Christian worship services were not generally witnessing events that
those who wanted to return did not simply attend the next Christian service.
Christian services were meant for Christians to worship God and celebrate
the Lord's Supper, while they were not designed to be services to witness to
people. Even today, there is a huge difference between a gathering for the
purposes of worship, and a gathering for the purposes of evangelisation, and
there is a huge difference between the sermon a pastor will prepare for
those who are already Christians, and one he will prepare for a group of
non-Christian people he hopes to bring the Gospel message to. So the
Adventist argument that, had Christians observed Sunday, they would have
come for more of Paul's preaching the very next day, not the next Sabbath,
fails, because Adventists fail to consider the difference between a
Christian service where Christians worshipped, and an event where they
witnessed to unbelievers. The passage from 2 Corinthians puts this in
perspective.
So, in summary, I don't see why this text refers to Christian Sabbath
observance.
Stephen Korsman
>
> Deuteronomy 17:3
> And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun,
or
> moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
The use of statues, pictures, and other icons in worship
To me this is a fairly simple issue, and the problem lies in Protestant
misinterpretation of the second commandment and of what the Bible says. It
can be solved using the Bible alone, therefore I will deal with it first.
The way I see it, the second commandment is conditional - we may make
statues, pictures, etc., but we may not worship them. And since Catholics do
not worship the images in their churches and homes, they are not breaking
any of God's commandments by using those images.
For convenience, I will quote Exodus 20:4-5a (RSV) here: You shall not make
for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God
am a jealous God ...
This verse has been interpreted in two ways - no images may be made at all,
and images may be made but not worshipped.
Common sense and experience tells us that it is the second interpretation
that is the correct one - we may make images that are not worshipped. If the
second commandment were absolute, it would be a sin to make photographs, put
pictures in books, make statues of non-religious people. Most people (there
are exceptions) do not go to that extreme.
Some people say, okay, but religious statues, pictures and icons are not
allowed. Once again, most Protestants will disagree with that, at least in
practice. Most Protestant Churches allow illustrated Bibles - these contain
pictures of the prophets, saints, and even depictions of God like those
found in Daniel 7:9, and of course pictures of Jesus, the icon (eikwn) of
God in flesh - see I Cor 11:7. The Bible is also clear about the making of
such graven images - it is permissible. In fact God himself commanded it -
see Exodus 25:18-22, 26:1,31 (God commands statues and images of cherubim to
be made), Num. 21:8-9 (God commands a statue of a snake to be made for
religious purposes), I Kings 6:23-29,35, 7:25,29,36, I Chron 28:18-19, Ezek
41:15 (graven images of the sea, oxen, palm trees, cherubim, lions).
So all I can conclude from the above passages is that images are allowed,
even in a religious context such as the Temple, as long as they are not
worshipped.
Some objections can be made - the cherubim over the Ark would not be seen by
many people, and therefore would not be worshipped. But this ignores the
fact that while the ark was being carried around on the journeys of the
people of Israel before it came to rest in the Temple, many people would see
it. The images of oxen, lions, etc. would be seen by the average Israelite.
And finally, the image of the snake was an image that God said the general
public had to go to and look at in order to be healed of snake bite. The
common Protestant objection to that today would be that it is only an image,
it has no special powers, no faith in the image can save you, not even from
snake bite, and that to have such faith that looking to the image can indeed
save you would constitute idolatry. However, God believed differently. He
used this image to test the people's faith in him, not the image. Likewise
today, when we look to an image, it is not the image of Christ on the cross
we rely on or pray to or worship, but Christ himself. Same as with the
snake, the same sort of respect.
The fact is that the people of Israel at that time were very much tempted to
worship a piece of wood or brass that represented something, especially
calves. The commandment was designed to stop them replacing their true God
with false gods, and was not designed to keep their religious art forms
limited to abstract painting. That sort of temptation is no longer an issue
in modern culture - people don't want to worship a statue, they are aware
that it is just a piece of plaster or wood. They worship in front of the
statue, as the ancient Israelites showed their faith to God in front of a
statue.
An objection that still often comes up is that we bow in front of this
statue, and this appears to be forbidden by the second commandment. However,
a look into what the Bible says about bowing gives a different picture.
There are certain verses that show people bowing down to other people or
angels, and the person being honoured in this way stops the action, e.g. Rev
22:8-9. This is because the person realised that this person bowing down was
doing so in an unfit way - he was worshipping him, which was wrong. That is
why the action was stopped and corrected.
However, when bowing down to a person and not intending it as worship, but
only out of respect, one is not sinning at all. I Sam 25:41 shows a woman
bowing to David, and nowhere is this condemned. The LXX uses the Greek word
proskuneo (proskunho) for both this action of respect as well as worship of
God. See also the angels in Gen. 18:2-3 (LXX), and the master in Matt 18:26.
So we have concluded the following:
- The Bible condemns worship of images, but not the making of images
- The Bible condemns worship of angels and people, but not the honouring of
them by bowing to them
That leaves us with the fact that it is not a sin to bow to an angel or
saint in honour of him/her. And if we do not bow to their statue, but rather
to them, that is not sinful. In fact it is something the Bible is completely
silent on - i.e. bowing to saints in front of images of them. If the image
is not sinful, the bowing is not sinful, then what is the problem with what
Catholics do ?
One further thing to note is that Catholics often seem to think of certain
statues or other items as holy, to give them respect. Most notable of these
is the Turin Shroud, which some claim is the burial shroud of Jesus.
Protestants seem to think that honouring the bones of a holy man is wrong,
or that honouring the tomb or belongings or relics of a holy man is wrong.
To be more correct, Catholics worship God and honour the saints in the
presence of these holy items, and do not honour them directly - that would
be pointless. But Protestants still think it is as pointless to worship in
the presence of a saint's bones as it is to worship in the presence of a
sack of flour. However, that is where Catholics and the Bible see
differently to the Protestants.
The Protestants have fallen prey to the heresy of the 1st century Gnostics.
They believed that all that was physical was evil, and that good was found
only in the spiritual. Hence they rejected the use of icons and symbols -
physical, tangible means of worship (note: not objects of worship.) The
consequence of this was that they rejected the idea that Jesus the physical
man was actually God - the main heresy for which the Apostle John scolds
them in his epistles, found in the Bible.
Look at scriptures like II Kings 13:20-21 (Elisha's bones perform a
miracle), Matt 9:20-22 (the woman believed if she just touched Jesus'
clothes she would be cured - and was cured), Acts 5:15-16 (Peter's shadow is
seen as holy and miraculous), and Acts 19:11-12 (Paul's handkerchiefs are
sent around to perform miracles on their own). Here we can see cases where
physical objects carry with them miraculous power. Nowhere does the Bible
tell us that such events are wrong, that the use of miraculous bones or
objects is sacrilegious - in fact Acts 19:11-12 tells us that the miracles
were organised by God himself. So it is quite understandable why Catholics,
like the early Christians, see holiness on physical objects, and think it
appropriate to give thanks to God for letting such holiness touch their
lives by giving such items respect, and even a place to be seen and used in
the churches and homes of the faithful.
Stephen Korsman
Catholics don't do that.
> Where did God command you to worship on Sunday?
Where did God command Christians to observe the Sabbath? Nowhere.
> If you do a search into Paganism, you will see that Tammuz birthday was
> December 25th. Also do a search to see what time of year the sheep were
out
> on the plains at the time and place of Jesus birth. Baal was also a sun
> god.
The sheep were out there - and you can still see them there today.
> If you are going to be worshipping on Sunday, make sure you understand
what
> you are worshipping.
We worship the God of the Bible on Sunday.
> Constantine was the first to make a Sunday law.
Obviously nobody did before - Christianity was not legal before.
> Could people who did not
> keep it buy or sell? What happened to them?
They bought and sold.
> You said something about if I had lived in those times I would have
> persecuted heretics or I would have chained a Bible. That just is not so.
Yes, it is so. I never said you'd persecute heretics. But you would have
chained the Bible, considering it cost more than a house, and few people
could read it anyway. How else would you prevent heretics from stealing it?
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen Korsman
>
> So if you really followed that,
> you would know that He said the ceremonial law was a shadow of things to
> come,
Col 2:16-17
(Col 2:13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses;
(Col 2:14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his
cross;
(Col 2:15) And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of
them openly, triumphing over them in it.
(Col 2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
(Col 2:17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Paul starts by mentioning that the law is nailed to the cross, and he goes
on to mention a few laws as examples. One law that he mentions is the
Sabbath. Sabbatarians try to argue that this word does not mean the 7th day
Sabbath in this context. That argument is unscriptural and illogical for two
main reasons.
First, the word used is the word used to describe the Sabbath. This word is
NEVER used to describe ANY other day, outside the five books of Moses. After
the time Moses wrote the books, the word Sabbath lost the meaning that it
had in terms of other days, and became used exclusively for the 7th day
Sabbath. Only in the earliest times were these days called Sabbaths. After
that they were called holy days.
The issue of whether the word is singular or plural is totally irrelevant,
because there are many places in the Bible where the plural and the singular
are used, BOTH describing a single Saturday, not even describing several
Saturdays, certainly not describing a collection of holy days. Col 2:16 uses
the word just as the rest of the Bible does - to mean the 7th day Sabbath.
To claim otherwise is to ignore the meaning of the word used and its place
in the language and grammar of the time.
Paul would never refer to these days as "sabbaths" because it was not part
of the language we wrote in.. Since the Greek and Hebrew of their day did
not consider the word "Sabbath" to describe these days, the Sabbatarian
argument is flawed.
Secondly, the whole term used refers to festivals and new moons and
Sabbaths. Take a look at all the times when this and similar phrases are
used, phrases listing various types of religious days. Each and every time,
this term refers to the religious days observed under the Old Covenant. And
if you look at what each subsection in the phrase means, you see that
festivals are the yearly holy days (Passover, Pentecost, Yom Kippur,
Trumpets, etc), the new moons are the monthly observance of the new moon,
and the Sabbath is the only thing left - exactly what the word meant in the
language of the time - the 7th day of the week.
Since he lists the annual festivals and the sabbath separately, the word
"sabbaths" clearly cannot mean "annual festivals" because then he would be
writing redundantly, and sound silly. Comparing the phrase to similar uses
throughout the Bible, this construct includes the annual, monthly, and
weekly observances of the Old Covenant.
(1Ch 23:31) And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths,
in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order
commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:
(2Ch 2:4) Behold, I build a house to the name of the LORD my God, to
dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the
continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the
sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our
God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel.
(2Ch 8:13) Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the
commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the
solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened
bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
(2Ch 31:3) He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the
burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and
the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set
feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.
(Neh 10:33) For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for
the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set
feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an
atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.
(Eze 45:17) And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and
meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons,
and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall
prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and
the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
(Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new
moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
(Gal 4:10) Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
(Col 2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
My interpretation is as follows:
festivals = yearly feasts
new moons = monthly new moon feast mentioned in Ezekiel and other texts
sabbaths = weekly 7th day sabbaths
Note that ALL are in the plural - so it is not unexpected to find the
Sabbath being plural too. In fact, the plural Greek word used, "sabbaton" is
a plural used in other texts like Matt 28:1, Luke 4:16, and in the
Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament the Apostles quoted from,
Exodus 20:8 and Leviticus 23:37-38. So this word "sabbaton" can and does
mean the 7th day of the week.
Also, the lack of a definite article in the original Greek also does not
prevent the word "sabbaton" from being translated as the 7th day Sabbath.
Matt 28:1, John 5:9, 5:10 and 5:16 all use the same term without the
definite article, and all of them DO mean the 7th day Sabbath.
In the original Greek, the word used by Matthew in Matt 28:1 is the SAME
plural Greek word SABBATON used by Paul in Col 2:16.
In the original Greek, the word used by Luke in Matt 4:16 is the SAME plural
Greek word SABBATON used by Paul in Col 2:16.
Therefore, SABBATON in Col 2:16 is to be seen in the same light as SABBATON
in Matt 28:1 and Luke 4:16 - as a singular.
See also the Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament the Apostles
quoted from, Exodus 20:8 and Leviticus 23:37-38.
I would like to know from you how you interpret each of those three types of
day mentioned in Col 2:16 - if the word "sabbath" means annual feasts, what
does the word "festival" mean? And what are your reasons for doing so? And
why is my reasoning wrong?
If it refers to the annual Sabbaths, Paul is really making silly mistakes
here - he would in fact be saying, "with regard to an annual sabbath, a
monthly feast, or an annual sabbath." To repeat himself like that makes no
sense.
Paul uses the term "festival" and the term "sabbath" in one phrase, so they
obviously mean something different in that phrase - they cannot be synonyms
if they are used in this way in one phrase. Paul lists three different types
of feast here - it would be absurd to claim he is talking about two types,
and just mentioned once twice.
Obviously, the word "festival" means something different to "sabbath" here -
"festival" means "annual feasts" and "sabbath" means the 7th day. Paul's
writing skills were not that poor.
Therefore we have to accept that the Sabbath is merely a shadow of Christ.
Now that we have the real thing in our lives, the Sabbath is no longer
obligatory for us as Christians.
Based on BOTH grammar and language meaning on the one hand, AND parallel
biblical examples on the other, we see that the only logical interpretation
of this text is to accept that the weekly Sabbath is indeed listed as one of
the precepts of the Old Covenant now nailed to the cross.
So far, all I can see is that Paul DID mean to refer to the 7th day Sabbath,
so we should accept that instead of fighting it. Often, I know, that is
hard, because we are brought up in a certain way, and it's human nature to
resist change. But take a careful look at the New Testament, and if you
really can find references to the Sabbath being necessary, to the Sabbath
being kept by Christians, I'd love to hear them - I cannot find any.
Col 2:16 says that the 7th day Sabbath is a shadow of something to come.
Elsewhere the Bible says it is a memorial of something past. So we seem to
agree, the 7th day Sabbath is BOTH a shadow of Christ (already come) and a
memorial of the old creation (which turned to sin.) The logical Christian
choice is to keep the day that looks forward to the NEXT coming of Christ,
and looks back on the NEW creation WITHOUT sin - Sunday.