Authorized Version Defended
Gerald Caldwell
KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION DEFENDED
By Gerald L. Caldwell
I believe the King James 1611 Authorized Version (AV 1611) to be the preserved, inerrant and infallible word of the True God and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. To quote the late Billy Sunday, "Where the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another--scholarship can go plumb to the Devil." Here are the main reasons for my personal belief in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible of the English Reformation. Mind you, this will only be a succinct synopsis!
1) IT HAS NO FINANCIAL COPYRIGHT!
There are over 15 million books in the Library of Congress with
financial copyrights with the exception of ONE BIBLE--the AV 1611.
Anyone can copy anything they want to copy out of this book without paying
a dime! The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of
God...the prophecy came not...by the WILL OF MAN: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim 3:16; 2Pet
1:20-21. If your preacher, mother or father doesn't agree with
that--they can LUMP IT! The reason for the AV 1611 not having one
is simple--no man can put a copyright on GOD'S WORD! Unless of course
he's suffering from illusions of grandeur. What true Bible-believing
Christian would be egotistical enough to think he's God? Aren't people
strange?
Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be TRUE, but every man a LIAR."
2) IT REVEALS FACTS IN ADVANCE THAT COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN REVEALED
BY GOD!
To name a few:
a) Day and Night are simultaneous. 1500 years in
advance. Lk 17:31, 34.
b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus
in the 15th century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15.
3000 years in advance.
d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance.
Job 25:5.
These so-called educated men (scientists, philosophers, doctors, etc.) have always trailed 500 years-plus behind the revelations of the AV 1611! So who with a sane mind would think that it was (to quote the science worshipping monkey-men) made up by man?! Especially after considering the fact that an unsaved man is called a JACKASS in Ex 13:13 and Job 11:12! What man would sit down and write "every man at his best state is altogether vanity" (Ps 39:5)? Vanity means worthless! Isn't DOO-DOO worthless? Do you know what that means? That means that every man (i.e., your preacher, mother, father, doctor and YOU) at his BEST STATE (the best you can be) is no better than a pile of DOG MANURE! Time would fail to list the rest. This is the type of negativism found throughout the best-selling book ever written. To say that men made these things up is ludicrous. Every book you ever read outside the AV 1611 has always exalted and set man up on a pedestal. This book says you're no better than a pile of DIRT (Gen 3:19). I'm sure that puts a damper on how good you think you are.
Romans 3:12 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."
That includes me, YOU, that includes your friends, mother, father,
pastor, lawyer, social worker and your SHRINK! Rom 3:12--READ IT!
And shut your mouth about being GOOD!
3) IT PROPHESIED THE INVENTIONS OF THINGS CENTURIES BEFORE THEIR
MANIFESTATION!
To name a few:
a) Automobiles. 2657 years in advance. Nah
2:3-4 and Isa 9:5.
b) Engines of war. 2500 years in advance.
Eze 26:9.
c) The telephone. 3600 years in advance. Job
38:35.
In the Old Testament 48 prophesies were recorded concerning the first advent (first coming) of the Lord Jesus Christ and every single one of them came true on the money! These were predicted 400 to 4000 years prior to His manifestation in the flesh (1Tim 3:16). There are 500 more concerning His second advent which haven't even occurred yet! And if that weren't enough the prophesy of an international CASH FREE society was recorded in 94 AD. In fact Daniel (BC 603) said that from gold the currency would degenerate to the DIRT. The government plans to insert a MICROCHIP into your right-hand as a substitute for your paper currency, which is worth about 2 cents! The microchip is made from silicon. Silicon comes from the SAND! Are all these things coincidences or lucky guesses? ARE YOU NUTS!? If you are an agnostic it would behoove you to wake up, smell the coffee and shut your mouth! The government plans to place a chip in the hands or foreheads of every man on this planet by the year 2000. That's just 4 years off. At this very moment, the government is taking every dime you've got. But some of you sheeple are so stupid you don't realize it. You people who trust in your money as GOD, and trust that your riches are going to get you to heaven. THOSE RICHES WILL BE TAKEN FROM YOU AND GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE WHEN THE ANTICHRIST SHOWS UP ON THIS EARTH! So be wise and trust in the TRUE God. Because money is temporal--as you shall see in a couple of years!
4) IT'S THE WORLD'S BESTSELLER!
Undoubtedly, the AV 1611 is the best-selling book ever written
in the universal language--ENGLISH--surpassing 2 billion copies.
(809 million were sold before 1940--any 3 modern translations combined
don't amount to that number!) It sold at the rate of 80,000 copies
a day for over 280 years. It had been translated in 109 languages
before 1880, and in 1578 languages after it. People have paid up
to $270,000 for the AV 1611. The Textus Receptus (Latin for Received
Text) from which it was translated caused the martyrdom of perhaps 50 million
Bible-believing Christians in the DARK AGES. The killers of course
were members of the BLOODY, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (Rev 17:5-6). By
the way, this is the prostitute responsible for the 240 plus corrupt translations,
which of course were derived from two corrupt Septuagint manuscripts (MSS)--Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus! (It is significant also to note that the Westcott
and Hort Greek text is based on these corrupt MSS!) Both of these
MSS (written AD 330) were produced in ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT (that is, AFRICA)--a
place of which God only speaks negatively (See Gen 12:12, Ex 20:2, Deu
4:20, 17:16, Zec 14:17-18 and Rev 11:8 etc.). The Textus Receptus
to the contrary was derived from ANTIOCH, SYRIA the place wherein "the
disciples were called Christians first" (Act 11:26--READ IT)! It
is the most despised book on this planet because it states bluntly without
any apologies the depravity and destiny of Christ-rejecting children of
SATAN! See John 8:44-47, 3:36, Eph 2:12, 2Th 1:7-9, 2:8-12, Rev 20:11-15,
21:8, etc. According to the Lord Jesus Christ this book will be here
after this earth is burnt to a crisp (Mt 24:35; Ps 12:6-7, 119:89,160;
2Pe 3:7)! AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT!
5) GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD'S FOREVER!
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them,
O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
Since God is not a liar (Nu 23:19, Titus 1:2) we know that His
words are here somewhere. Heretics and infidels have attempted to
get rid of this book for centuries and have always failed. Why?
Because of God's promise, son! People who underestimate the
AV 1611 say "Where was your Bible before the KJV?" and we say "Where
was your face before you washed it--BEHIND THE DIRT"! That's exactly
where it was during the DARK AGES. For God's word is LIGHT (Ps 119:105,
130)! This is why that period of history is called the DARK ages
(never mind the MIDDLE ages), because during that time GOD'S WORD (THE
LIGHT) was behind the dirt! Following the Rapture of the church (1Th
4:16) it will be behind the dirt again.
Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a FAMINE in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of HEARING THE WORDS of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to SEEK THE WORD of the LORD, and SHALL NOT FIND IT."
You had best read it while you can. The Roman Catholic
Church is trying its BEST to get rid of and replace it with their GARBAGE!
It is said to have been purified seven times (Ps 12:6) which are:
1) Hebrew. The majority of the Old Testament.
2) Aramaic. Portions of the Old Testament (Ezra and
Daniel).
3) Greek. New Testament.
4) Syriac. First translation (AD 120).
5) Old Latin. Second translation (AD 140).
This was corrupted by Jerome (commissioned by the Pope!) in the Latin Vulgate,
the official Bible of the Satanic Roman Catholic Church.
6) German (1522-1534). Third translation which was
the work of an ex-catholic (Protestant)--Martin Luther, the leader of the
Reformation.
7) English. King James 1611 AV.
Since this book goes contrary to the Roman Catholic church (the
mother of all false churches, Rev 17), in 1880 she began replacing it with
what has now mounted to 240 corrupt translations plus! Her excuse
for this is that the KJV is archaic (out of date) so in 1881 the reprobates
produced the Revised Version and then the American Standard Version in
1901. Since then our language has become out of date TWICE A YEAR--according
to THEM. (0VER 240 VERSIONS IN THE TIME PERIOD OF 100 YEARS.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?) Obviously, they didn't read Ps 119:140 and
Prov 30:5, which makes it clear--to anyone who can read 5th grade English--that
God's words are PURE--P-U-R-E. Any fool knows that our modern English
is not pure but DEGENERATE. Furthermore, he knows that the purest
English in the world is called ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH--which was used in the
Shakespearean writings and the KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION!
If the language is not pure--it is not God's word. Furthermore, there
are italics found in the AV 1611 to inform it's readers that those words
were added for sentence construction--not DESTRUCTION. To the contrary,
no such thing occurs in the corrupt versions which proves that their translators
were dishonest in their work! Did you get that!? You had better!
In addition to this (to name a few) the following doctrines were CUT OUT
(Jer 36) of the new translations:
1) The Holy Trinity. 1Jn 5:7.
2) The Virgin Birth. Lk 2:33. If Joseph was
Christ's FATHER--he was not VIRGIN BORN!
3) The “INFALLIBLE” proofs of the Resurrection. Act
1:3.
4) The Eternity of Christ. The fact that he never
had a beginning! Mic 5:2.
5) The Deity of Christ (the clearest references).
See 1Tim 3:16 and Lk 23:42 for example. Their lame excuse for this
perversion of scriptures (Jer 23:36, 2Cor 2:17, Ps 119:105, 130, Isa 8:20)
is, "Since the fundamentals of the faith can be found somewhere in these
corrupt translations, it is perfectly okay to for us to MUTILATE the others
-- especially the CLEAR ones -- because, after all, we're great godly scholars."
But to the contrary, we are conclusively commanded in both testaments NOT
TO TAMPER with God's words (Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18-19)! (By the way,
no Greek or Hebrew scholar has ever discovered any major doctrine that
wasn't already found in the AV 1611.) Furthermore, we who can read
were told that the Lord Jesus Christ is to have the preeminence in "ALL
THINGS" (Col 1:18)--that includes the BIBLE! So what Bible believing
Christian would trust in a so-called "Bible" that didn't give Jesus the
preeminence in all things just because it has "Holy Bible" stamped on its
cover?! If the Bible you have is not the AV 1611, Jesus Christ is
not given the preeminence. IF DON'T BELIEVE IT--READ IT! "Never
judge a BOOK by its cover"! Sound familiar?
6) The Omnipresence of Christ. The fact that Jesus
Christ can be in all places simultaneously! That's an attribute of
Almighty God. See Jn 3:13 and Mt 18:20.
7) Satan's name--"LUCIFER." Isa 14:12. Now
I wonder who would cut that out? The AV 1611 is the ONLY Bible that
has this name in it. Sure, you can find it in the footnote of the
new translations -- BUT THE FOOTNOTES ARE NOT THE WORDS OF GOD! Who
would guide a scholar into deleting such a thing? You only get one
guess (Gen 3--READ IT).
8) The commandment for a Christian not to "BEAR FALSE WITNESS."
Rom 13:9. These words are omitted from this verse in the NIV (Nutty
Idiot's Version). You would expect someone who was a LIAR to omit
these words--now wouldn't you. Notice the flat out LIE found in Mk
1:2 in every corrupt translation on the market internationally. The
"better translations" substitute "It is written in ISAIAH THE PROPHET"
for the KJV reading "It is written in the PROPHETS" with the two quotations
following--Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3! According to the AV 1611 there were
two prophets (Malachi and Isaiah) quoted by Mark--NOT ONE! This of
course is the truth. If you don't believe it--READ IT. If God's
word is "true from the beginning" (Ps 119:160) and it is impossible for
God to lie (Nu 23:19, Titus 1:2), what would make a Christian think that
these corrupt translations are "HOLY BIBLES"!? HUH!? People
are strange aren't they? (See my pamphlet "Corrupt Translations"
for further details.)
9) The COMMANDMENT for the Christian to "STUDY" God's word
(2Tim 2:15)! The word "study," S-T-U-D-Y, is found TWICE in the word
of God! The AV 1611 is the ONLY Bible in which this commandment is
stated! The other 214 corrupt Roman Catholic translations (including
the "NEW" King James Version, which is a JOKE!) have OMITTED this commandment
given by the Almighty God. Why? Because the so-called Bible
scholars wants the Christian to trust in THEM as the FINAL AUTHORITY--NOT
GOD'S WORD (Rom 3:4)! They want you to believe their CRITICAL analysis
and exegesis of the scriptures, when in fact, the BIBLE is the CRITIC (Heb
4:12)! The Roman Catholic (The Holy CATS, Rev 13) Popes, bishops,
cardinals and BALDHEADED priests have been guilty of this very thing for
over 1000 years! If a Christian is studying one of the "new" translations,
he certainly isn't doing so because his Bible commands him to. Why?
Because the commandment to STUDY is not found in the "new" translations!
Thus, they who do study these demoniac translations are doing so because
MAN told them to--not GOD! Unlike the corrupt translations, the AV
1611 was written on a 5th and 6th grade level. Thus, if you're a
SAVED man with at least a 5th grade education, you should have no
problems understanding the Book. What do you do when you run across
a word in any book that you don't understand? Well, if you have any
sense at all, you look it up in a DICTIONARY! But most of you are
just too LAZY for that. Listen! You were commanded to STUDY
that Book. And unless you want to be a Bible DUMBBELL all your life--you
will OBEY the commandment.
10.) The record that only the "SAVED" nations shall dwell
in the Lamb's light. Rev 21:23-24. According to this omission,
all nations shall dwell with Christ! Do you see how the subtraction
of one word can destroy a Bible doctrine? Can't you see that!?
The word SAVED has been omitted! Keep in mind that I've only given
you a FEW cases of the godless perversion of the scriptures by these Bible-rejecting
heretics. There are actually 30,000 changes found in these corrupt
translations.
The Sinaiticus MSS were found in a TRASH CAN in 1844 by Dr. Tischendorf
in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai! The location of
the Vaticanus MSS is obvious--the VATICAN! Of course you know what
comes in "VATS" and "CANS." These corrupt MSS contain the APOCRYPHA
(uninspired writings) as a part of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha
contains the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS and the EPISTLE OF BARNABAS and 12 other
books as part of the New and Old Testaments. Oddly enough neither
of these portions were included in the "better translations" from the "oldest
and best" MSS (See footnotes on Mark 16.9 in the Scofield Reference Bible
and any modern translation). If these are the OLDEST and BEST MSS,
why didn't they TRANSLATE the other 14 books?! Was there something
wrong with them? If so, they ARE NOT the BEST MSS. They told
an out and out LIE! These are what the so-called scholars refer to
as the "ORIGINALS," which of course God can care less about (Jer 36)!
Therefore, until you check (Acts 17:11) this evidence (which is just 1/20th
of the documented evidence) in defense of the AV 1611--please do us Bible
believing Christians a favor. SHUT YOUR DIRTY, LYING MOUTH ABOUT
THE ORIGINALS WHICH YOU AND YOUR PASTOR HAVE NEVER READ, SEEN NOR HEARD!
If you have the sense that God gave to a brass monkey, you would
examine this evidence very carefully, and very prayerfully and check the
given references. Don't you dare take my word for it! Get off
your lazy backside, TURN OFF the television set, and open your Bible
and read it--it's very enlightening! That's your problem right now!
You're always believing what the jackass says from behind the pulpit without
CHECKING him out (Act 17.11). DON'T BE A FOOLISH IGNORAMUS ALL YOUR
LIFE! Open up Protestant Bible of the English Reformation and
see what's going on! May the Lord bless you, and good day.
Gerald L. Caldwell, Founder, Editor
Bible Believer's Ministries
Tallahassee, FL
(850) 575-4201
tb...@istal.com
Nigel
constructive things instead of pouring out kilobytes of rubbish.
My comments are placed between the original text.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:32:47 GMT, Gerald Caldwell <lo...@istal.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION DEFENDED
>By Gerald L. Caldwell
>
>
> I believe the King James 1611 Authorized Version (AV 1611) to be the
>preserved, inerrant and infallible word of the True God and Saviour, the
>Lord Jesus Christ. To quote the late Billy Sunday, "Where the Bible
>says one thing and scholarship says another--scholarship can go plumb to
>the Devil." Here are the main reasons for my personal belief in the
>infallibility of the Protestant Bible of the English Reformation. Mind
>you, this will only be a succinct synopsis!
>
OK, this is quite normal for those woh accept the doctrine and dogma
of the mainline churches. No shocking news here. Even the rejection
of scholarship by right-wing/conservative churches is nothing new.
It just goes to show how blinkered they are. Afraid to be confronted
with new facts because they are incapable of providing good, reasoned
argumentation against them.
If everything had remained in their hands, the world would have been a
far worse place than it is now.
>1) IT HAS NO FINANCIAL COPYRIGHT!
> There are over 15 million books in the Library of Congress with
>financial copyrights with the exception of ONE BIBLE--the AV 1611.
>Anyone can copy anything they want to copy out of this book without
>paying a dime! The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration
>of God...the prophecy came not...by the WILL OF MAN: but holy men of
>God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim 3:16; 2Pet
>1:20-21. If your preacher, mother or father doesn't agree with
>that--they can LUMP IT! The reason for the AV 1611 not having one is
>simple--no man can put a copyright on GOD'S WORD! Unless of course he's
>suffering from illusions of grandeur. What true Bible-believing
>Christian would be egotistical enough to think he's God? Aren't people
>strange?
>
>Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be TRUE, but every man a LIAR."
The KJV is copyrighted in the UK. The copyright is held by the
Queen's Stationers and Oxford and Cambridge University. If you
examine a copy of a KJV bible printed in the UK you will see the words
Cum Priviligio on the cover page of both the Hebrew Bible and the New
Testament.
Well, you have got off to a good start. We go further...
2Tim3:16 NRSV: All scripture is inspired by God and is (or: is also)
useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness.
The KJV translation is quite similar. This applies to all the quotes
from the NRSV below.
2Peter1:20-21 NRSV: For if, after they have escaped the defilements of
the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has
become worse for them than the first.
For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of
righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy
commandment that was passed on to them.
So, where does your quote come from? It seems to be anything but
inerrant.
>
>2) IT REVEALS FACTS IN ADVANCE THAT COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN REVEALED BY
>GOD!
>To name a few:
> a) Day and Night are simultaneous. 1500 years in advance. Lk 17:31,
>34.
Luke 17:31 NRSV On that day, anyone on the housetop who has
belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and
likewise anyone in the field must not turn back.
Luke 17:34 NRSV I tell you, on that night there will be two in one
bed; one will be taken and the other left.
What has this to do with day and night being simultaneous?
> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
>century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
Isa 40:21-22 NRSV Have you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not
been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood the
foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....
Well, a circle is not a sphere and the fact that Columbus thought the
earth to be flat is thus fully justified. He was not so stupid after
all in assuming that a 2-dimensional figure is flat!!
> c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15. 3000 years in
>advance.
Once again a misinterpretation if one takes what you wrote literally.
A quote from the awfully conservative NIV Study Bible:
HEART: in biblical language the center of the human spirit, from which
spring emotions, thought, motivations, courage and action - the
"wellspring of life".
So the author of the psalm had looked around and seen that bread keeps
people alive and, once they have eaten, makes them cheerful and ready
for action.
> d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance. Job 25:5.
Job 25:5 NRSV If even the moon is not bright....
In this case shineth not means being not bright. Even the NASB uses
the word brightness! Here we have a case of a change in the language
between the 17th and 21st century. Nothing worthy of a fuss.
>
> These so-called educated men (scientists, philosophers, doctors, etc.)
>have always trailed 500 years-plus behind the revelations of the AV
>1611! So who with a sane mind would think that it was (to quote the
>science worshipping monkey-men) made up by man?! Especially after
>considering the fact that an unsaved man is called a JACKASS in Ex 13:13
>and Job 11:12! What man would sit down and write "every man at his best
>state is altogether vanity" (Ps 39:5)? Vanity means worthless! Isn't
>DOO-DOO worthless? Do you know what that means? That means that every
>man (i.e., your preacher, mother, father, doctor and YOU) at his BEST
>STATE (the best you can be) is no better than a pile of DOG MANURE!
>Time would fail to list the rest. This is the type of negativism found
>throughout the best-selling book ever written. To say that men made
>these things up is ludicrous. Every book you ever read outside the AV
>1611 has always exalted and set man up on a pedestal. This book says
>you're no better than a pile of DIRT (Gen 3:19). I'm sure that puts a
>damper on how good you think you are.
>
>Romans 3:12 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."
>
> That includes me, YOU, that includes your friends, mother, father,
>pastor, lawyer, social worker and your SHRINK! Rom 3:12--READ IT! And
>shut your mouth about being GOOD!
>
>3) IT PROPHESIED THE INVENTIONS OF THINGS CENTURIES BEFORE THEIR
>MANIFESTATION!
>To name a few:
> a) Automobiles. 2657 years in advance. Nah 2:3-4 and Isa 9:5.
Nahum speaks of rushing chariots. Chariots are drawn by horses, cars
are not. Carriages were, but cars are not.
Isaiah does not even speak of chariots!!
Is 9:5 NRSV: For all the boots of the tramping warriors and all the
garments rolled in blood shall be burned as fuel for the fire.
> b) Engines of war. 2500 years in advance. Eze 26:9.
What is an engine of war? This is such a vague term. Ezekiel speaks
of battering rams.
> c) The telephone. 3600 years in advance. Job 38:35.
Job 38:35 NRSV Can you send forth lightnings, so that they may go and
say to you "Here we are"?
Not even if I try to think really laterally can I see how one arrives
at the telephone via the lightning bolt.
>
Well, I have cut the rest of the message away. One can only deal with
a certain amount of garbage in one day. I'll leave the rest of the
message for others to dissect.
A suggestion to the original author: lay off the joints/crack/XTC for
a few day then read what you have written. Compare that dilligently
to what you will find in the bible and you will see that you have
wasted a lot of your time. time which could have better been spend on
more fruitful works.
One more thing: cross-posting goes against the rules of netiquette.
Greetings,
Nigel
Pastor Dave
<lo...@istal.com> wrote:
> KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION DEFENDED
>By Gerald L. Caldwell
>
>
> I believe the King James 1611 Authorized Version (AV 1611) to be the
>preserved, inerrant and infallible word of the True God and Saviour, the
>Lord Jesus Christ. To quote the late Billy Sunday, "Where the Bible
>says one thing and scholarship says another--scholarship can go plumb to
>the Devil." Here are the main reasons for my personal belief in the
>infallibility of the Protestant Bible of the English Reformation. Mind
>you, this will only be a succinct synopsis!
The Bible of the English Reformation? Can you expound
on this please?
>1) IT HAS NO FINANCIAL COPYRIGHT!
> There are over 15 million books in the Library of Congress with
>financial copyrights with the exception of ONE BIBLE--the AV 1611.
>Anyone can copy anything they want to copy out of this book without
>paying a dime! The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration
>of God...the prophecy came not...by the WILL OF MAN: but holy men of
>God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim 3:16; 2Pet
>1:20-21. If your preacher, mother or father doesn't agree with
>that--they can LUMP IT! The reason for the AV 1611 not having one is
>simple--no man can put a copyright on GOD'S WORD! Unless of course he's
>suffering from illusions of grandeur. What true Bible-believing
>Christian would be egotistical enough to think he's God? Aren't people
>strange?
I agree with that.
>3) IT PROPHESIED THE INVENTIONS OF THINGS CENTURIES BEFORE THEIR
>MANIFESTATION!
>To name a few:
> a) Automobiles. 2657 years in advance. Nah 2:3-4 and Isa 9:5.
MAYBE.
> b) Engines of war. 2500 years in advance. Eze 26:9.
That's in there.
> c) The telephone. 3600 years in advance. Job 38:35.
That's REALLY stretching it. :) This verse discusses
lightning.
> In the Old Testament 48 prophesies were recorded concerning the first
>advent (first coming) of the Lord Jesus Christ and every single one of
>them came true on the money!
There's a lot more than 48 prophecies of Him.
I agree with your conclusion about the Alexandrian
Texts. It might be helpful to know also, that the
Sinaiticus isn't the one used much. It is mostly the
Vaticanus, which is the one that disagrees with the
Majority Texts the most.
Pastor Dave
<npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
>>century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
>
>Isa 40:21-22 NRSV Have you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not
>been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood the
>foundations of the earth?
>It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....
>
>Well, a circle is not a sphere and the fact that Columbus thought the
>earth to be flat is thus fully justified. He was not so stupid after
>all in assuming that a 2-dimensional figure is flat!!
By that logic, a ball is flat, since a ball is round
and so is a circle.
>> c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15. 3000 years in
>>advance.
>
>Once again a misinterpretation if one takes what you wrote literally.
>A quote from the awfully conservative NIV Study Bible:
>HEART: in biblical language the center of the human spirit, from which
>spring emotions, thought, motivations, courage and action - the
>"wellspring of life".
>So the author of the psalm had looked around and seen that bread keeps
>people alive and, once they have eaten, makes them cheerful and ready
>for action.
You should do some research. Bread actually used to be
quite good for the heart, before some ingredients were
removed, so the bread wouldn't go bad so fast. It used
to contain Lecithin and Vitamin E, for example.
>> d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance. Job 25:5.
>
>Job 25:5 NRSV If even the moon is not bright....
>In this case shineth not means being not bright. Even the NASB uses
>the word brightness! Here we have a case of a change in the language
>between the 17th and 21st century. Nothing worthy of a fuss.
The Hebrew word means what he said. You are basing
your assumptions on a translation based on corrupt
texts. Namely, the Alexandrian Texts, which the writer
notes later. Therefore, any supposed refutation, which
is based on those translations, are meaningless.
Nigel
<nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:36:49 GMT, Nigel
><npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
>>>century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
>>
>>Isa 40:21-22 NRSV Have you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not
>>been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood the
>>foundations of the earth?
>>It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....
>>
>>Well, a circle is not a sphere and the fact that Columbus thought the
>>earth to be flat is thus fully justified. He was not so stupid after
>>all in assuming that a 2-dimensional figure is flat!!
>
>By that logic, a ball is flat, since a ball is round
>and so is a circle.
>
A ball is spherical. At least that is what British and European
schools teach. A hoop is circular.
>>> c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15. 3000 years in
>>>advance.
>>
>>Once again a misinterpretation if one takes what you wrote literally.
>>A quote from the awfully conservative NIV Study Bible:
>>HEART: in biblical language the center of the human spirit, from which
>>spring emotions, thought, motivations, courage and action - the
>>"wellspring of life".
>>So the author of the psalm had looked around and seen that bread keeps
>>people alive and, once they have eaten, makes them cheerful and ready
>>for action.
>
>You should do some research. Bread actually used to be
>quite good for the heart, before some ingredients were
>removed, so the bread wouldn't go bad so fast. It used
>to contain Lecithin and Vitamin E, for example.
>
Complete and utter nonsense once more. Here in The Netherlands all
those ingrediaents are still found in bread.
The original fallacious poster mentioned hear muscle. The word muscle
does not appear in the KJV.
>>> d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance. Job 25:5.
>>
>>Job 25:5 NRSV If even the moon is not bright....
>>In this case shineth not means being not bright. Even the NASB uses
>>the word brightness! Here we have a case of a change in the language
>>between the 17th and 21st century. Nothing worthy of a fuss.
>
>The Hebrew word means what he said. You are basing
>your assumptions on a translation based on corrupt
>texts. Namely, the Alexandrian Texts, which the writer
>notes later. Therefore, any supposed refutation, which
>is based on those translations, are meaningless.
>
I am basing my translation on what scholarship has made of the
original Hebrew word. Nothing more and nothing less.
Erasmus, a leading Humanist, has a lot to answer for. At least he
admitted that his translation of the NT was not based on the oldest
possible manuscripts but was a back-translation from the Latin.
As always the kinds of posts like the original one in questio here are
most useful for me when teaching bible classes: they let my students
see how not to work with biblical texts.
Try reading the English section of this website:
www.remonstranten.org because it will help you enormously with
communicating with others and respecting their viewpoints whilst at
the same time being able to take criticism.
Nigel
Ben Ferguson
> KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION DEFENDED
> By Gerald L. Caldwell
>
>
> I believe the King James 1611 Authorized Version (AV 1611) to be the
> preserved, inerrant and infallible word of the True God and Saviour, the
> Lord Jesus Christ. To quote the late Billy Sunday, "Where the Bible
> says one thing and scholarship says another--scholarship can go plumb to
> the Devil." Here are the main reasons for my personal belief in the
> infallibility of the Protestant Bible of the English Reformation. Mind
> you, this will only be a succinct synopsis!
>
> 1) IT HAS NO FINANCIAL COPYRIGHT!
> There are over 15 million books in the Library of Congress with
> financial copyrights with the exception of ONE BIBLE--the AV 1611.
> Anyone can copy anything they want to copy out of this book without
> paying a dime! The Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration
> of God...the prophecy came not...by the WILL OF MAN: but holy men of
> God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2Tim 3:16; 2Pet
> 1:20-21. If your preacher, mother or father doesn't agree with
> that--they can LUMP IT! The reason for the AV 1611 not having one is
> simple--no man can put a copyright on GOD'S WORD! Unless of course he's
> suffering from illusions of grandeur. What true Bible-believing
> Christian would be egotistical enough to think he's God? Aren't people
> strange?
By your standard, I could make my own Biblical translation,voluntarily
release it into the public domain, and it would be infallable.
> Romans 3:4 "God forbid: yea, let God be TRUE, but every man a LIAR."
>
So you're lying?
> 2) IT REVEALS FACTS IN ADVANCE THAT COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN REVEALED BY
> GOD!
> To name a few:
> a) Day and Night are simultaneous. 1500 years in advance. Lk 17:31,
> 34.
> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
> century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
Learned men at that time knew the world was round.
> c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15. 3000 years in
> advance.
> d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance. Job 25:5.
>
> These so-called educated men (scientists, philosophers, doctors, etc.)
So you don't think they are educated?
> have always trailed 500 years-plus behind the revelations of the AV
> 1611! So who with a sane mind would think that it was (to quote the
> science worshipping monkey-men) made up by man?!
Because King James commissioned a group of scholars to work in
translating it?
Gee, it seems you don't even know much about this book.
Especially after
> considering the fact that an unsaved man is called a JACKASS in Ex 13:13
> and Job 11:12! What man would sit down and write "every man at his best
> state is altogether vanity" (Ps 39:5)? Vanity means worthless! Isn't
> DOO-DOO worthless? Do you know what that means? That means that every
> man (i.e., your preacher, mother, father, doctor and YOU) at his BEST
> STATE (the best you can be) is no better than a pile of DOG MANURE!
Calm down. Take your medicine.
> Time would fail to list the rest. This is the type of negativism found
> throughout the best-selling book ever written. To say that men made
> these things up is ludicrous. Every book you ever read outside the AV
> 1611 has always exalted and set man up on a pedestal. This book says
> you're no better than a pile of DIRT (Gen 3:19). I'm sure that puts a
> damper on how good you think you are.
>
> Romans 3:12 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."
>
> That includes me, YOU, that includes your friends, mother, father,
> pastor, lawyer, social worker and your SHRINK! Rom 3:12--READ IT! And
> shut your mouth about being GOOD!
So feeding hungry people is a bad thing?
Esperanto is the universal language.
--surpassing 2 billion copies. (809 million
> were sold before 1940--any 3 modern translations combined don't amount
> to that number!) It sold at the rate of 80,000 copies a day for over
> 280 years. It had been translated in 109 languages before 1880, and in
> 1578 languages after it. People have paid up to $270,000 for the AV
> 1611. The Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text) from which it was
> translated caused the martyrdom of perhaps 50 million Bible-believing
> Christians in the DARK AGES. The killers of course were members of the
> BLOODY, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (Rev 17:5-6). By the way, this is the
> prostitute responsible for the 240 plus corrupt translations, which of
> course were derived from two corrupt Septuagint manuscripts
> (MSS)--Sinaiticus and Vaticanus! (It is significant also to note that
> the Westcott and Hort Greek text is based on these corrupt MSS!) Both
> of these MSS (written AD 330) were produced in ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT (that
> is, AFRICA)--a place of which God only speaks negatively (See Gen 12:12,
> Ex 20:2, Deu 4:20, 17:16, Zec 14:17-18 and Rev 11:8 etc.). The Textus
> Receptus to the contrary was derived from ANTIOCH, SYRIA the place
> wherein "the disciples were called Christians first" (Act 11:26--READ
> IT)! It is the most despised book on this planet because it states
> bluntly without any apologies the depravity and destiny of
> Christ-rejecting children of SATAN! See John 8:44-47, 3:36, Eph 2:12,
> 2Th 1:7-9, 2:8-12, Rev 20:11-15, 21:8, etc. According to the Lord Jesus
> Christ this book will be here after this earth is burnt to a crisp (Mt
> 24:35; Ps 12:6-7, 119:89,160; 2Pe 3:7)! AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT!
Why the F are you yelling?
> 5) GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD'S FOREVER!
>
> Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a
> furnace of earth, purified SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
> thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
> Since God is not a liar (Nu 23:19, Titus 1:2) we know that His words
> are here somewhere. Heretics and infidels have attempted to get rid of
> this book for centuries and have always failed. Why? Because of God's
> promise, son! People who underestimate the AV 1611 say "Where was your
> Bible before the KJV?" and we say "Where was your face before you
> washed it--BEHIND THE DIRT"! That's exactly where it was during the
> DARK AGES. For God's word is LIGHT (Ps 119:105, 130)! This is why that
> period of history is called the DARK ages (never mind the MIDDLE ages),
> because during that time GOD'S WORD (THE LIGHT) was behind the dirt!
> Following the Rapture of the church (1Th 4:16) it will be behind the
> dirt again.
>
> Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will
> send a FAMINE in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for
> water, but of HEARING THE WORDS of the LORD: And they shall wander from
> sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and
> fro to SEEK THE WORD of the LORD, and SHALL NOT FIND IT."
> You had best read it while you can. The Roman Catholic Church is
> trying its BEST to get rid of and replace it with their GARBAGE!
Are you part of the KK?
It is
> said to have been purified seven times (Ps 12:6) which are:
> 1) Hebrew. The majority of the Old Testament.
> 2) Aramaic. Portions of the Old Testament (Ezra and Daniel).
> 3) Greek. New Testament.
> 4) Syriac. First translation (AD 120).
> 5) Old Latin. Second translation (AD 140). This was corrupted by
> Jerome (commissioned by the Pope!) in the Latin Vulgate, the official
> Bible of the Satanic Roman Catholic Church.
> 6) German (1522-1534). Third translation which was the work of an
> ex-catholic (Protestant)--Martin Luther, the leader of the Reformation.
> 7) English. King James 1611 AV.
>
> Since this book goes contrary to the Roman Catholic church (the mother
> of all false churches, Rev 17), in 1880 she began replacing it with what
> has now mounted to 240 corrupt translations plus! Her excuse for this
> is that the KJV is archaic (out of date) so in 1881 the reprobates
> produced the Revised Version and then the American Standard Version in
> 1901. Since then our language has become out of date TWICE A
> YEAR--according to THEM. (0VER 240 VERSIONS IN THE TIME PERIOD OF 100
> YEARS. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?) Obviously, they didn't read Ps 119:140
> and Prov 30:5, which makes it clear--to anyone who can read 5th grade
> English--that God's words are PURE--P-U-R-E. Any fool knows that our
> modern English is not pure but DEGENERATE
So by your standards, the KJV, which IS written in "modern english",
is degenerate.
> CHECKING him out (Act 17.11). DON'T BE A FOOLISH IGNORAMUS ALL YOUR
> LIFE! Open up Protestant Bible of the English Reformation and see
> what's going on! May the Lord bless you, and good day.
You're a sad case.
> Gerald L. Caldwell, Founder, Editor
> Bible Believer's Ministries
> Tallahassee, FL
> (850) 575-4201
> tb...@istal.com
Is there any significance that you're from Northern Florida?
Gerald Caldwell
sissified New World Order. YOU are too soft to deal with me, let alone the word of God. I
am sure that you wouldn't hesitate to tell the Lord Jesus Christ is a LIAR at the Judgement
Seat of Christ since do it so loosely in THIS age. If you want to remain a knuckle-head
it's a FREE country. I could really care less. So long, SUCKER. (How's that for
"yelling," softy.)
Gerald Caldwell
sissified New World Order. YOU are too soft to deal with me, let alone the word of God. I
am sure that you wouldn't hesitate to tell the Lord Jesus Christ is a LIAR at the Judgement
Seat of Christ since do it so loosely in THIS age. If you want to remain a knuckle-head
it's a FREE country. I could really care less. So long, SUCKER. (How's that for
"yelling," softy.)
Pastor Dave
<npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:55:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
><nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:36:49 GMT, Nigel
>><npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
>>>>century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
>>>
>>>Isa 40:21-22 NRSV Have you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not
>>>been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood the
>>>foundations of the earth?
>>>It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....
>>>
>>>Well, a circle is not a sphere and the fact that Columbus thought the
>>>earth to be flat is thus fully justified. He was not so stupid after
>>>all in assuming that a 2-dimensional figure is flat!!
>>
>>By that logic, a ball is flat, since a ball is round
>>and so is a circle.
>>
>
>A ball is spherical. At least that is what British and European
>schools teach. A hoop is circular.
Then you are saying that a ball is NOT round? That it
is never described as such?
http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/agfd/arms.html
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/articles/vecsey-article2.html
http://www.barkertownsutlers.com/roundball.html
http://www.funkyside.com/index.cfm/detail/Music/SongLyrics/2358.htm?SongID=656
http://www.wildwooddesigns.com/store/products.asp?dept=107
http://www.grtnorthern.com/glassware.html
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quostar.shtml
>>>> c) Bread is good for the heart muscle. Ps 104:15. 3000 years in
>>>>advance.
>>>
>>>Once again a misinterpretation if one takes what you wrote literally.
>>>A quote from the awfully conservative NIV Study Bible:
>>>HEART: in biblical language the center of the human spirit, from which
>>>spring emotions, thought, motivations, courage and action - the
>>>"wellspring of life".
>>>So the author of the psalm had looked around and seen that bread keeps
>>>people alive and, once they have eaten, makes them cheerful and ready
>>>for action.
>>
>>You should do some research. Bread actually used to be
>>quite good for the heart, before some ingredients were
>>removed, so the bread wouldn't go bad so fast. It used
>>to contain Lecithin and Vitamin E, for example.
>>
>Complete and utter nonsense once more. Here in The Netherlands all
>those ingrediaents are still found in bread.
And you speak for the entire world? The fact is, that
ingredients were removed, to help keep the bread
longer. I named only two and you may want to check the
amounts.
>The original fallacious poster mentioned hear muscle. The word muscle
>does not appear in the KJV.
What is "strengthened" then?
"...and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."
- Psalm 104:15
>>>> d) The moon does not shine. 3203 years in advance. Job 25:5.
>>>
>>>Job 25:5 NRSV If even the moon is not bright....
>>>In this case shineth not means being not bright. Even the NASB uses
>>>the word brightness! Here we have a case of a change in the language
>>>between the 17th and 21st century. Nothing worthy of a fuss.
>>
>>The Hebrew word means what he said. You are basing
>>your assumptions on a translation based on corrupt
>>texts. Namely, the Alexandrian Texts, which the writer
>>notes later. Therefore, any supposed refutation, which
>>is based on those translations, are meaningless.
>>
>I am basing my translation on what scholarship has made of the
>original Hebrew word. Nothing more and nothing less.
That isn't an honest statement at all. To say it is
the "original", you must show that the single text upon
which it is based, namely the Vaticanus, corrects the
other texts, of over 5,000, which agree with each
other.
>Erasmus, a leading Humanist, has a lot to answer for. At least he
>admitted that his translation of the NT was not based on the oldest
>possible manuscripts but was a back-translation from the Latin.
1) We are not discussing "Erasmus", but the texts. If
you want to get into that discussion, then you will
have to deal with the problems with Wescott and Hort
and others.
2) Having older texts, does not equal having better
texts. This is the only argument that proponents of
the Alexandrian Texts have. Yet in reality, if the
text is older, it simply means that it wasn't used.
Back then, they had no concept of saving originals. A
certified copy was considered as good as the original.
Texts wore out and were copied, replaced and destroyed.
3) What you must show to be in error, is not the Latin,
but rather, over 5,000 texts that agree with each
other, 98% of the time. As for the other 2%, they are
simply misspellings, or when the name of a city
changed, etc.. No doctrinal issues are affected,
unlike the Vaticanus (which was found in a pile of
garbage, ready to be used for kindling), which is the
primary Alexandrian Text used for modern translations,
which disagrees with the Majority Texts in over 3,000
places in the New Testament alone.
>As always the kinds of posts like the original one in questio here are
>most useful for me when teaching bible classes: they let my students
>see how not to work with biblical texts.
Then you should really get up on the history of these
texts and what exactly is used for these modern
translations.
>Try reading the English section of this website:
>www.remonstranten.org because it will help you enormously with
>communicating with others and respecting their viewpoints whilst at
>the same time being able to take criticism.
God's word does not call us to respect false teaching.
They are corrupt texts and I spoke the truth. If that
offends you, then that is not my doing.
Richard Weatherwax
"Nigel" <npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:lcqicuknpqaph1nbh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:55:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
> <nospam-pa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:36:49 GMT, Nigel
> ><npldh7W...@icqmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> b) The earth is round--not flat as believed by Columbus in the 15th
> >>>century. 2292 years in advance. Isa 40:21-22.
> >>
> >>Isa 40:21-22 NRSV Have you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not
> >>been told to you from the beginning? Have you not understood the
> >>foundations of the earth?
> >>It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....
> >>
> >>Well, a circle is not a sphere and the fact that Columbus thought the
> >>earth to be flat is thus fully justified. He was not so stupid after
> >>all in assuming that a 2-dimensional figure is flat!!
> >
> >By that logic, a ball is flat, since a ball is round
> >and so is a circle.
> >
>
> A ball is spherical. At least that is what British and European
> schools teach. A hoop is circular.
Neither of you are reading the passage correctly. Get rid of your
preconceptions of the shape of the world, and read what biblical text says.
In Genesis 1 it states:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And
God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.
In the next verse it says:
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening
and the morning were the second day.
The Hebrew word which the KJV translates as "Heaven" is "Shamayim" (Strong's
#8064) and can be translated as either "heaven" or "sky". The Bible does
not distinguished between "Heaven" and "sky" as being separate places. At
the time in which the KJV was translated, the word "Heaven" was frequently
used to indicate the sky.
If you had read the scripture without reading into it, you will notice that
the sky is described as is a partition which separates the waters above from
the waters below. The earth (dry land) is not created until verse 9.)
Looking up from the earth at this "firmament ", i.e. "the sky", it appears
to us to be dome shaped. Thus we get Isaiah's statement:
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell
in:
You should be able to see now that the passage does not describe the earth,
it describes the sky which is above the earth.
--
Wax
Job 13:7
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Askjo
"Gerald Caldwell" <lo...@istal.com> wrote in message news:3CC8F496...@istal.com...
KING JAMES 1611 AUTHORIZED VERSION DEFENDED
Ben Ferguson
> Look, Brother. (If I can call you that.) Apparently, you've been sucked into this
> sissified New World Order.
No I haven't guess again.
> YOU are too soft to deal with me, let alone the word of God.
You are wrong. How do I know that YOU are the one who doesn't believe
in the word of God?
I
> am sure that you wouldn't hesitate to tell the Lord Jesus Christ is a LIAR at the Judgement
> Seat of Christ since do it so loosely in THIS age.
Acutally you are the liar, because you have been lying about me.
If you want to remain a knuckle-head
> it's a FREE country. I could really care less. So long, SUCKER. (How's that for
> "yelling," softy.)
You are insulting my character because you know you are wrong and have
no good arugments against my logic.
Pastor Dave
I am well aware of this. I was responding to his
statement that the earth could not be a circle, which
is contained in the Scripture reference he quoted.
>You should be able to see now that the passage does not describe the earth,
>it describes the sky which is above the earth.
Or both. That is open to interpretation.
finlander
better off reading the REB, NIV, and NET.news:3CC8F496...@istal.com...
jamesanderson
is being offered. Is it the
spirit of Love and of Grace, or the Spirit of Disunity and contention. The
spriit of Christ of the
Spirit of the Pharisees, who even though they had the Word of God, were far
from a saving knowledge
of Him. The King James Bible was and is a masterpiece of translation. Its
origional intent which can be
read in the preface was to present the Word of God to the common people in
its own language.
When it was done, it had been over 100 years
since the last translation was complete. A time frame the Translators felt
was too long. English usage had
changed over a century, recognizing these changes, they translated using the
best texts available and best
scholarship available to them. Any translation is subject to a certain
subjectiveness. People have their
own theoligical bents, and how can you render a passage in english that can
be translated 4 or 5 ways, some
of which in english would change the meaning. Every translator since has had
to struggle with the same
problem. lets take just one passage in King James, to someone not in the
church what would the
burning of faggots mean to him? Today the connenetation contains something
not thought of in Elizabethean
England who would have understood the passage instantly as associated with
wood sticks. Today,
The translators of King James set out to do the best they could to render
the text in the current english
of their day, as have the RSV, NAS, NIV, NRSV, TEV translators. Some are
better translations than
others, but all have attempted to their best ability to render the Word of
God to their current generation
accurately.
"Ben Ferguson" <benf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5819fe8d.02042...@posting.google.com...
jamesanderson
some special
inspiration to the translators in William Tynsdale Day and King James Day
that is no longer
available. The KJV Bible was translated by Scholars that you now so quickly
schadalize.
KJV had 50 plus available to translate, actually they updated the Tynsdale
Bible and did
re-translation where they felt it appropiate based on older manuscripts. The
Same basic
process taken by the NKJV Scholars. the NASB Scholars started with the
oldest manuscripts
that they felt most accurately represented the origional inspired text. and
yes, and by the way
if you read many of the scholars available to translate the king james text.
They also felt the same
way. that the oldest manuscripts represented the more accurate
representation of the origional text.
KJV is a fine translation, but has been revised at least 5 times in its 400
year history. If you really
feel that only KJV represents the Word of God. Which Version and WHY.news:3CCA3775...@istal.com...
Pastor Dave
<jamesa...@cox.net> wrote:
>Let me ask one question here for the KJV defenders, Do you think there was
>some special
>inspiration to the translators in William Tynsdale Day and King James Day
>that is no longer
>available. The KJV Bible was translated by Scholars that you now so quickly
>schadalize.
>KJV had 50 plus available to translate, actually they updated the Tynsdale
>Bible and did
>re-translation where they felt it appropiate based on older manuscripts. The
>Same basic
>process taken by the NKJV Scholars. the NASB Scholars started with the
>oldest manuscripts
>that they felt most accurately represented the origional inspired text. and
>yes, and by the way
>if you read many of the scholars available to translate the king james text.
>They also felt the same
>way. that the oldest manuscripts represented the more accurate
>representation of the origional text.
>KJV is a fine translation, but has been revised at least 5 times in its 400
>year history. If you really
>feel that only KJV represents the Word of God. Which Version and WHY.
Oldest does not automatically equal better. Take a
look at the following site.....
http://carlgraham.home.mindspring.com/Bible%20Roots.htm
For the most part, it's accurate.
I am not claiming to be a "KJV only" person, but in
regard to most of the modern day translations, the
above fits.
___
In Christ,
Pastor Dave
jamesanderson
I can see mounting a defense of King James based on manuscript evidence, but
the logic
of this posting is twisted. Copyright laws did not come into effect until
after
the King James Version was printed which prohibits it's being copyrighted
even if someone
or group wanted to. So what does that have to do with anything? As for the
Version, You
use the King James Version to defend itself? Its Circular reasoning. The
King James Version
Literally proves itself because any variation must be wrong because it does
not agree with
King James. Any Cult can use similar Circular reasoning and prove itself to
be gods true
representative. Defend the Translation based on the Manuscript evidence if
you wish,
Argue that Textus Recptus is superior to the Majority Text if you Like, and
Hence most
of the Modern translations except New King James would be considered suspect
and not
as reliable. At least that makes some sense. By the Way, the manuscript
difference between
The Byzantine tradition and Alexandrian Tradition is 15% at most. Most of
the post here
would make no difference no matter which text you are translating, on most
points they
agree, amoung the 15% variation, a great deal to boot is gramatical
variation.
By the Way, you can make a good case for either text tradition.
"finlander" <husk...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ucq0p0h...@corp.supernews.com...
Askjo
"Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "jamesanderson" <jamesa...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:V7eC8.31118$v32.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > Let me ask one question here for the KJV defenders, Do you think there
was
> > some special
> > inspiration to the translators in William Tynsdale Day and King James
Day
> > that is no longer
> > available.
>
>
> The KJV Bible was translated by Scholars that you now so quickly
> > schadalize.
> > KJV had 50 plus available to translate, actually they updated the
Tynsdale
> > Bible and did
> > re-translation where they felt it appropiate based on older manuscripts.
> The
> > Same basic
> > process taken by the NKJV Scholars.
>
>
> the NASB Scholars started with the
> > oldest manuscripts
>
oldest
> MSS disagreed each other in the Gospel alone 3,000 times.
>
> > that they felt most accurately represented the origional inspired text.
> and
> > yes, and by the way
> > if you read many of the scholars available to translate the king james
> text.
> > They also felt the same
> > way. that the oldest manuscripts represented the more accurate
> > representation of the origional text.
> > KJV is a fine translation, but has been revised at least 5 times in its
> 400
> > year history. If you really
> > feel that only KJV represents the Word of God. Which Version and WHY.
>
> translation because modern versions were based on 45 inferior mss of 5255
> manuscripts. Some scholars, who defended modern versions, declined to
> testify the manuscript evidences because they denied the KJV is the best
> one.
>
> Askjo
>
>
Jim Sheffield
Askjo,
I have asked many times that the defenders of modern
versions read competant scholars on the other side
such as Burgon, Hoskier. Pickering, Letis, Hills,
Scrivener, Mills, and others and the answer I usually
get is don't tell me what to read. It's so sad that
many people follow what Burgon called the German Scholarship
like a bunch of lemmings. I wish you good luck but doubt
they will engage with the empirical data of Bible history.
God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
P.S. I have read Metzger and Gordon Fee; so I have read
both sides. Any defended of modern versions who
hasn't read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark" is intellectually dishonest.
antiaging
> "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message news:<OICC8.67337$Ez5.16...@typhoon.neo.rr.com>...
>
>
> Askjo,
>
> I have asked many times that the defenders of modern
> versions read competant scholars on the other side
> such as Burgon, Hoskier. Pickering, Letis, Hills,
> Scrivener, Mills, and others and the answer I usually
> get is don't tell me what to read. It's so sad that
> many people follow what Burgon called the German Scholarship
> like a bunch of lemmings. I wish you good luck but doubt
> they will engage with the empirical data of Bible history.
> God bless!
>
> Pax Christi
> Jim
That " Pax Christi" is a Jesuit phrase. If you don't want people to
think that you are a catholic undercover agent or in association with
the Jesuits, then I suggest that you stop using it. I will not trust
your posts, just because you use that phrase.
antiaging
> some special
> inspiration to the translators in William Tynsdale Day and King James Day
> that is no longer
> available. The KJV Bible was translated by Scholars that you now so quickly
> schadalize.
> KJV had 50 plus available to translate, actually they updated the Tynsdale
> Bible and did
> re-translation where they felt it appropiate based on older manuscripts. The
> Same basic
> process taken by the NKJV Scholars. the NASB Scholars started with the
> oldest manuscripts
> that they felt most accurately represented the origional inspired text.
However they were incorrect. The parchiaments that they chose were the
oldest parchiaments, but they did not contain the oldest text. The
Massoretic text of the Jews and the textus receptus are the oldest
unaltered texts. The vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts, (or the
Alexandrian text) that were chosen by the NASB scholars are corrupted
texts that had the words changed way back in the 4th century by
unbelieving Egyptian philosophers.
[Don't fall for any catholic lies that the textus receptus came from
Erasmus; the textus receptus is the original New Testament copies that
were copied word for word and hidden, and recopied and passed down
throught the centuries. Hundreds of the manuscripts were found and all
agreed word for word.]
The alexandrian text, which the RSV, Nasb, niv, and the other modern
versions come from, comes from 5 manuscripts from Alexandria which
disagree with each other in several places and they disagree with the
textus receptus in 5% of important places.
You can see the disagreements at this website:
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a
true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were
deliberately changed for reasons other than translation.
http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm
The massoretic text of the Jews is the real unaltered Old Testament
text. The King James Bible Old Testament is translated from the
massoretic text.
ENCYCLOPADIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the
Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with
diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun
around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic
academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as
possible, the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future
generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and
whatever
oral traditions were available to them.
The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word
and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted
discrepancies in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing,
the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation.
Among the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned
in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition,
signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public
reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.
When the final codification of each section was complete, the
Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and
letters in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which
letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could
be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its
preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew
texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for
600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the
earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices
(late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the
authentic
Hebrew Bible.
If you want the real words written by the writers of the New and Old
Testament, the way that they wrote it, then get the King James Bible.
Jim Sheffield
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in message news:<94210c86.02050...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message news:<OICC8.67337$Ez5.16...@typhoon.neo.rr.com>...
> >
> >
> > Askjo,
> >
> > I have asked many times that the defenders of modern
> > versions read competant scholars on the other side
> > such as Burgon, Hoskier. Pickering, Letis, Hills,
> > Scrivener, Mills, and others and the answer I usually
> > get is don't tell me what to read. It's so sad that
> > many people follow what Burgon called the German Scholarship
> > like a bunch of lemmings. I wish you good luck but doubt
> > they will engage with the empirical data of Bible history.
> > God bless!
> >
> > Pax Christi
> > Jim
>
> > both sides. Any defended of modern versions who
> > hasn't read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The
> > Last Twelve Verses of Mark" is intellectually dishonest.
> That " Pax Christi" is a Jesuit phrase. If you don't want people to
> think that you are a catholic undercover agent or in association with
> the Jesuits, then I suggest that you stop using it. I will not trust
> your posts, just because you use that phrase.
It is Latin for peace of Christ. I am not asking you to
trust me since I am a sinner saved by grace, but to trust
the Bibles used by the Magisterial Reformers and for
English speakers the Bible translated by the 47 faithful
scholars known as the Authorized Versiion.
Pax Christi
Jim
Askjo
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.02050...@posting.google.com...
> "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<OICC8.67337$Ez5.16...@typhoon.neo.rr.com>...
>
> Askjo,
>
> I have asked many times that the defenders of modern
> versions read competant scholars on the other side
> such as Burgon, Hoskier. Pickering, Letis, Hills,
> Scrivener, Mills, and others and the answer I usually
> get is don't tell me what to read. It's so sad that
> many people follow what Burgon called the German Scholarship
> like a bunch of lemmings. I wish you good luck but doubt
> they will engage with the empirical data of Bible history.
> God bless!
>
> Pax Christi
> Jim
>
> P.S. I have read Metzger and Gordon Fee; so I have read
> both sides. Any defended of modern versions who
> hasn't read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The
> Last Twelve Verses of Mark" is intellectually dishonest.
You and I are common to defend the genuine Bible, but I collected
"debate/argument" comments from them for my research. I noticed most posts
said, "inferior," "scholars," "best translations than KJV" and many phrases.
I also noticed one most key referring to people, who defend their modern
versions, complaining against the KJV for anything what they want to negate
all the time. My key for them is: Where is their faith? D. A. Waite, for
example, said that he believes by faith that the KJV is most accurate
translation for English-speaking people available today.
See the website about the Faith Principle:
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/kjvissue/faith.html
History of Controversy by Dr. Clinton Branine, my professor at Heritage
Baptist University where I attended.
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/kjvissue/history_branine.html
Askjo
The Boog-man Seven7s
Actually, this passage does not necessarily come from divine
revelation. DOZENS of ancient peoples KNEW that the world was round.
Only the EXTREMELY uneducated believed otherwise. It's a pretty harsh
misconception that is, unfortunately, in most history texts today.
That it was in the documents that form the KJV is not the first place
it appears in history.
The Boog-man Seven7s
Marco Funk
I am saying this in the least insulting way.... who gives a care... the
new testament and old testaments were oral traditions long before they were
put on paper... so one word is different here or there... The Holy Spirit is
with God's church and has given us the duty of 'binding and loosing'...
discerning the will of God from what we do know... all of the translations
should be considered when making ethically binding statements...
Secondly... study greek and hebrew for yourselves... if this type of
stuff is so important to you... don't hide behind what some so-called
'inspired' translators thought... God gave you a brain... and the ability to
learn Greek and Hebrew... so go and do it... after all... its fun... and
chicks dig guys who speak greek.. lol ... just kidding
Christ's peace to both of you
Marco Funk; youth pastor at Rosthern Mennonite Church
Rosthern, SK
"Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OICC8.67337$Ez5.16...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
Jim Sheffield
Funk,
I have asked many times that the defenders of modern
versions read competant scholars on the other side
such as Burgon, Hoskier. Pickering, Letis, Hills,
Scrivener, Mills, and others and the answer I usually
get is don't tell me what to read. It's so sad that
many people follow what Burgon called the German Scholarship
like a bunch of lemmings. I wish you good luck but doubt
they will engage with the empirical data of Bible history.
God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
P.S. I have read Metzger and Gordon Fee; so I have read
both sides. Any defended of modern versions who
hasn't read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark" is intellectually dishonest.
Have you read Burgon Funk? Maybe, if you study the empirical
evidence, we might be able to dialogue intelligently. Study
to be approved, then let us reason together. God nless!
Jim
Jim Sheffield
They believe in what they have been told in seminary. They are
modern "gnostics so-called" who believe that all the ancient
churches lost the true bible and they found the true ones
thrown out in Egypt. The theory is absurd, but Jesus gave us
a true test, we can tell a tree by its fruit and by that test
the AV wins hands down. God bless!
Jim
Robert Shepherd
> Look, Brother. (If I can call you that.) Apparently, you've been sucked into this
> sissified New World Order. YOU are too soft to deal with me, let alone the word of God. I
> am sure that you wouldn't hesitate to tell the Lord Jesus Christ is a LIAR at the Judgement
> Seat of Christ since do it so loosely in THIS age. If you want to remain a knuckle-head
> it's a FREE country. I could really care less. So long, SUCKER. (How's that for
> "yelling," softy.)
>
>
I do not think that it is fair for unbelievers to think that all
faitheists are softies, or suckers, or sissies.
It is true that for the purposes of expanding world markets and the
globalization of aggregate demand, the Bush family have been
supporters of the New World Order, but they were hardly the architects
of it, any more than the tri-lateral commission or the bilderbergers.
Capitalism won't work without markets, without consumers. Even Adam
Smith saw that, yet Bush gets branded as selling out to the Mammon
interests, and the NWO.
Conspiracy buffs need some sort of Cabal to blame, and if they can
start a public brawl in the process, it becomes for them a kind of
strange self-validating exercise.
But I recall how George Bush I (who coined the phrase New World Order
after the soviet collapse) was ridiculed for being a softie, a sissy,
a preppy, a sweetie, and certainly his frequent attendance at church,
his conspicuous friendship with numberous religious clergy,
evangelicalists, Baptists, episcopals, catholics, and of course Billy
Graham.
Cartoons caricatured Bush with a purse in his hands.
And Bush, an avowed believing Christian faitheist, took it all in good
humor, even appearing with Dana Carvey in a few venues (like SNL).
Mr. Caldwell calls us names, but many of the greatest of our past have
been attacked by name-callers.
-Billy Sunday was called ignorant, illegitimate,
-D.L. Moody was labelled a pacisfist,
-John Adams was called an overeducated fanatic,
-Lincoln was labelled ignorant and uneducated, even called a mulatto,
and ape, and part Negro.
-Robert E. Lee was blamed for being episcopal, liturgical, and
aristocratic.
-Christianity has been called (by Nietzsche) a sissy religion, a slave
religion,
a religion for masochists and losers and servants.
-Jesus Christ was called a Beelzebub, a friend of harlots, publicans
and sinners.
Jim Sheffield
> I am saying this in the least insulting way.... who gives a care... the
> new testament and old testaments were oral traditions long before they were
> put on paper... so one word is different here or there... The Holy Spirit is
> with God's church and has given us the duty of 'binding and loosing'...
> discerning the will of God from what we do know... all of the translations
> should be considered when making ethically binding statements...
> Secondly... study greek and hebrew for yourselves... if this type of
> stuff is so important to you... don't hide behind what some so-called
> 'inspired' translators thought... God gave you a brain... and the ability to
> learn Greek and Hebrew... so go and do it... after all... its fun... and
> chicks dig guys who speak greek.. lol ... just kidding
> Christ's peace to both of you
> Marco Funk; youth pastor at Rosthern Mennonite Church
> Rosthern, SK
>
I am saying this in the least insulting way....your statement
about Greek shows you don't understand the debate.
One of the main issues in the Bible Version controversy
is which Greek textype is based on the original archtype, the
TR which I support, the Syrian, the so-called Alexandria,
the so-called Western, possibly a Caesarean, and any new
theory some scholar makes up. God gave you a brain... and the ability to
read so read "The Revision Revised" and "The Last Twelve Verses
of Mark" for a defense of the Traditional Text and "The New Testament
Text" by Metzger for a defense of modern versions and we might
have an intelligent dialogue. Study to be approved, then let us reason
together. God bless!
Jim
Marco Funk
I would read the books suggested by you... but I am not interested in
textual criticism... cause in the end you are chasing ghosts... I just
accept the stories as mine... both the Lutheran German translation... the
Good News Bible, The NRSV, etc.... my point is... translations don't phase
me... there are more important things that we can worry about then knowing
whether one verse says this word differently or another word the same... BIG
DEAL... the day this type of trivial stuff worries.. then I will read your
book.... there are more pressing matters that I would deal with if I were
you... the fact that most Christians still think it is ok to kill our
enemies... that is a serious misreading of the text, whatever version you
are reading...
I wish you Christ's Peace on The Way
Marco Funk
Rosthern, SK
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.02051...@posting.google.com...
Pastor Dave
<marco...@sasktel.net> wrote:
>Jim Sheffield:
> I would read the books suggested by you... but I am not interested in
>textual criticism... cause in the end you are chasing ghosts... I just
>accept the stories as mine... both the Lutheran German translation... the
>Good News Bible, The NRSV, etc.... my point is... translations don't phase
>me... there are more important things that we can worry about then knowing
>whether one verse says this word differently or another word the same... BIG
>DEAL... the day this type of trivial stuff worries..
http://carlgraham.home.mindspring.com/Bible%20Roots.htm
___
In Christ,
Pastor Dave
"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether
the gods which your fathers served that were on the
other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15
Jim Sheffield
and have no interest in studying;as the Bible says
no one seeks the truth. Since you know(i.e. gnosis in Greek)
without having studied the issue, I guess you have no need
for the WRITTEN Word of God like us mere mortals do, but as
for me I agree with Jerome if you don't have the Christ
of Scripture you don't have Christ. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
"Marco Funk" <marco...@sasktel.net> wrote in message news:<ueo7dt7...@corp.supernews.com>...
Vernon
Reading what someone says "about" the bible may be entertaining, but it is
not the bible or God's word.
The "issue" as you put it is not the same as "The Word".
15th century English is not the only language of God nor is Latin.
A very good way of determining if a person has captured the real "truth" of
the bible is to know that where one interprets a major theological
difference on a particular point between translations, one has created a
theological point not of God.
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.0205...@posting.google.com...
Marco Funk
I didn't say that I wasn't interesting in studying, all I was saying is
that I am interested in studying the scriptures AS THEY ARE because no one
textual tradition will give you what exactly happened. The scriptures are
the written forms of oral traditions. The REAL Jesus is no more real in one
translation than in another... all we have is stories... the difference
between you and me is that for you stories aren't enough... you want the
closest thing you can get to the actual historical event... the Christian
community that I am a part of holds the canon as it stands in numerous
traditions as the authoritive Word of God... This story is a story that I
have accepted as my story... whether it is exactly true to the pen of Paul
or Luke... is not something that can be helped... by any scholarly
studies... in the end... all you have is the witness of the apostles which
we read in the Gospels... claiming that one translation 'gets it right' is
as close to idolatry as biblical scholars come...
Marco
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.0205...@posting.google.com...
Phar Lap
<marco...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> Jim:
> I didn't say that I wasn't interesting in studying, all I was saying is
> that I am interested in studying the scriptures AS THEY ARE because no one
> textual tradition will give you what exactly happened. The scriptures are
> the written forms of oral traditions.
Not really they are actually written propaganda based on the writers ideas
but using oral traditions as a partial vehicle for the writers ideas.
This is particularly obvious in the Epistles and in the Gospel of John
As to Revelation..........................
The REAL Jesus is no more real in one
> translation than in another... all we have is stories... the difference
> between you and me is that for you stories aren't enough... you want the
> closest thing you can get to the actual historical event...
Is this supposed to be the wrong thing to do????
the Christian
> community that I am a part of holds the canon as it stands in numerous
> traditions as the authoritive Word of God...
And is this the right one??????
Think again
Or just think.
,
Jim Sheffield
> Jim:
> I didn't say that I wasn't interesting in studying, all I was saying is
> that I am interested in studying the scriptures AS THEY ARE because no one
> textual tradition will give you what exactly happened. The scriptures are
> the written forms of oral traditions. The REAL Jesus is no more real in one
> translation than in another... all we have is stories... the difference
> between you and me is that for you stories aren't enough... you want the
> closest thing you can get to the actual historical event... the Christian
> community that I am a part of holds the canon as it stands in numerous
> traditions as the authoritive Word of God... This story is a story that I
> have accepted as my story... whether it is exactly true to the pen of Paul
> or Luke... is not something that can be helped... by any scholarly
> studies... in the end... all you have is the witness of the apostles which
> we read in the Gospels... claiming that one translation 'gets it right' is
> as close to idolatry as biblical scholars come...
> Marco
>
willing to die to give the TRUE WORD OF GOD into the
hands of ploughmen. They didn't die for Postmodernism.
The Westcott-Hort theory which most modern versions follow
claim that the Christian Communities that existed historically
had corrupted Bibles between 485 to 1859 A.D. Those who were
for the testimony(i.e. Latin protestant)of Jesus resisted the
Vulgate for over a thousand years and we shall resist these
new translations for the True Word of God. Your refusal to
even study the issue is just sad. Study to be approved, then
let us reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Askjo
> Jim Sheffield:
> I would read the books suggested by you... but I am not interested in
> textual criticism...
That's the problem what you got. The textual critic J. Harold Greenlee has
said, 'New Testament textual criticism is, therefore, the basic Bible study,
a prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work.'
cause in the end you are chasing ghosts... I just
> accept the stories as mine... both the Lutheran German translation... the
> Good News Bible, The NRSV, etc.... my point is... translations don't phase
> me... there are more important things that we can worry about then knowing
> whether one verse says this word differently or another word the same...
BIG
> DEAL...
Big deal is you between God and Satan, but it is very serious deal THAN big
deal. What did God tell Adam about the tree of knowledge? What did the
Satan tell Eve about the same tree? Is that big deal? Their statements
toward the first creatures, whom God created, are disagreeing each other.
Likewise the KJV and modern versions.
the day this type of trivial stuff worries.. then I will read your
> book.... there are more pressing matters that I would deal with if I were
> you... the fact that most Christians still think it is ok to kill our
> enemies... that is a serious misreading of the text, whatever version you
> are reading...
Serious misreading of the text? What the most inconsistent Christians, who
are naturalistic, misread of it is that they mistranslated their modern
versions such as NIV with 6,500 twisted words, NASB with 4,000 twisted
words, New KJV with 2,000 twisted words and so on. These twisted words
disagreed with the wording of MSS that is identical to the wording of the
autograph. On other hand, what they misread of it is their
misinterpretation what they study, teach and preach. I made my big mistake
by teaching because I used wrong W/H books such as Wuest's Word Studies in t
he Greek New Testament and other Bible Study tools rejecting the TR.
See the Website:
http://www.staggs.pair.com/kjbp/kjb-docs/vrstbl.html
John 12:48--He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the
last day.
If someone, for example, used wrong words what God does say or not say, an
illustration is Isaiah 14:12--How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the nations!
NIV....... morning star
NASB... star of the morning
NRSV... Day Star
REB...... Bright morning star
NWT..... you shining one
NAB...... morning star
Revelation 22:16 (KJV) refers Morning Star to Jesus Christ, NOT the Satan!
However modern versions show Jesus and the Satan are the Same because they
are Morning Star. Is this doctrine correct?
Ok, let's go back to John 12:48. When someone stands before God's judgment,
He would ask you, "Am I the Satan or God? Who will you call the Morning
Star?" What is your answer? Be careful for what you study, teach and
preach.
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
> The Christian community that Tyndale was part of was
> willing to die to give the TRUE WORD OF GOD into the
> hands of ploughmen. They didn't die for Postmodernism.
> The Westcott-Hort theory which most modern versions follow
> claim that the Christian Communities that existed historically
> had corrupted Bibles between 485 to 1859 A.D. Those who were
> for the testimony(i.e. Latin protestant)of Jesus resisted the
> Vulgate for over a thousand years and we shall resist these
> new translations for the True Word of God. Your refusal to
> even study the issue is just sad. Study to be approved, then
> let us reason together. God bless!
And you will no doubt continue to resist even the authors themselves when
they seek to correct your errors in the next life.
> Pax Christi
Bellum codicum, I should think!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
===========================================================================
===================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Jim Sheffield
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
> news:94210c86.02052...@posting.google.com:
>
> > The Christian community that Tyndale was part of was
> > willing to die to give the TRUE WORD OF GOD into the
> > hands of ploughmen. They didn't die for Postmodernism.
> > The Westcott-Hort theory which most modern versions follow
> > claim that the Christian Communities that existed historically
> > had corrupted Bibles between 485 to 1859 A.D. Those who were
> > for the testimony(i.e. Latin protestant)of Jesus resisted the
> > Vulgate for over a thousand years and we shall resist these
> > new translations for the True Word of God. Your refusal to
> > even study the issue is just sad. Study to be approved, then
> > let us reason together. God bless!
>
> And you will no doubt continue to resist even the authors themselves when
> they seek to correct your errors in the next life.
>
> > Pax Christi
I am asking people to study both sides of the issue.
Have you read Burgon's "Revision Revised" and "The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark" for a good introduction
to the defense of the Traditional Text and Bruce
Metzger's "New Testament" for a defense of the neologan
texts or are you one of those who hasn't studied the issue,
and just wants to throw stones? Study to be approved, then let us
reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Marco Funk
Giving an honest account of scripture is important... I agree with you
there Jim, but not all 'battles' need to be fought by everyone. The
Mennonites died for adult baptism, yet now we are seeking dialogue with
those who baptize infants... without needing to fight those fights over
again. There is disagreement, and conversation still about it, but I think
that Menno's realize what baptism and confirmation symbolize in the Catholic
Church... I think in the same way, that although it is important not to
forget the story of Tyndale and his community of faith, I think however that
raising a big stink about differences in interpretation in this day and age
is quite uninteresting. Why? Because the narrative of the Bible, whether one
interpretation or the other, is basically getting things as close as they
can... because they, just like us, seek to be faithful to God. Pointing
fingers doesn't help as much as witnessing to the Lordship of Christ. Why
bring divisions into the church... let us preach nothing but Christ, and him
crucified...
Marco
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.02052...@posting.google.com...
Marco Funk
Funny you should mention the Magesterial reformers... and the martyrdom
of Tyndales community... in a previous post. It was majesterial reformers
like Ulrich Zwingli who ordered the persecution, including deaths, of
Anabaptists such as Michael Sattler... I have a bigger problem with
Christians killing each other than I do with what translation I am
reading...
peace out
Marco Funk
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:94210c86.0205...@posting.google.com...
Marco Funk
> Ok, let's go back to John 12:48. When someone stands before God's
judgment,
> He would ask you, "Am I the Satan or God? Who will you call the Morning
> Star?" What is your answer? Be careful for what you study, teach and
> preach.
I will not say anything of Morning Star's or translation.... on that day I
will worship Jesus, my Christ, my Friend, my Lord, and my God. (Revelation
5)
Dave Oldridge
Yes. Burgon is a historical revisionist, IMO.
> Metzger's "New Testament" for a defense of the neologan
> texts or are you one of those who hasn't studied the issue,
> and just wants to throw stones? Study to be approved, then let us
> reason together. God bless!
I seriously do NOT defend the NIV. It has too many errors. But to call
Vaticanus, the LXX and the Vulgate "neologan texts" is to just be plain
obtuse. I have ALL of these versions and study them all. But when I see
people making fools of themselves by following idolatrous hate-mongers,
then I speak out.
And personally, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible for an English
translation. But I don't worship it and I don't rely on it exclusively.
V.O.
Now, YOU tell me what "bright one" means in the above statement.
"Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eXGH8.8134$Jm.43...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
Askjo
> Askjo:
>
> > Ok, let's go back to John 12:48. When someone stands before God's
> judgment,
> > He would ask you, "Am I the Satan or God? Who will you call the Morning
> > Star?" What is your answer? Be careful for what you study, teach and
> > preach.
>
> I will not say anything of Morning Star's or translation....
By using modern versions, they said it. When you teach or preach by using
corrupted modern versions, you would say it.
on that day I
> will worship Jesus, my Christ, my Friend, my Lord, and my God. (Revelation
> 5)
Great!
Askjo
reject NWT as a cult. Lux in Latin means light. Ferre in Latin means
carry or bear. Lucifer means a light bearer or a shining one. Lucifer is
the one who bears light.
Askjo
"V.O." <vern...@contractor.net> wrote in message
news:Gf5I8.46364$db7.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
V.O.
> Lucifer means shining one as NWT, JW's Bible said. I agree with it but I
> reject NWT as a cult. Lux in Latin means light. Ferre in Latin means
> carry or bear. Lucifer means a light bearer or a shining one. Lucifer is
> the one who bears light.
>
> Askjo
Well, scholar, Lucifer is, was, not Satan.
Jim Sheffield
> Jim:
> Giving an honest account of scripture is important... I agree with you
> there Jim, but not all 'battles' need to be fought by everyone. The
> Mennonites died for adult baptism, yet now we are seeking dialogue with
> those who baptize infants... without needing to fight those fights over
> again. There is disagreement, and conversation still about it, but I think
> that Menno's realize what baptism and confirmation symbolize in the Catholic
> Church... I think in the same way, that although it is important not to
> forget the story of Tyndale and his community of faith, I think however that
> raising a big stink about differences in interpretation in this day and age
> is quite uninteresting. Why? Because the narrative of the Bible, whether one
> interpretation or the other, is basically getting things as close as they
> can... because they, just like us, seek to be faithful to God. Pointing
> fingers doesn't help as much as witnessing to the Lordship of Christ. Why
> bring divisions into the church... let us preach nothing but Christ, and him
> crucified...
> Marco
>
The problem with Postmodernism and I find your position no
different is "my narrative" finds it meaningful; so who is
to decide, the pope, my community, your community, Greek
Orthodox, secular courts, or whatever. That's why the
Magisterial Reformers decided the text of Scripture must
decide and their scholarship produced the TR and translations
from it(see Theodore Letis, Th.D. on this). You have gone a
long way to avoid any dialogue on the issue which I find
unworthy of you. Do you accept the Westcott-Hort position
that all official texts of the churches were corrupted
from 485 to 1659? Inquiring minds want to know. God bless!
V.O.
The Westcott-Hort position was one where the average person is incapable of
reading or interpreting real truth (Jesuit training). They specifically had
in mind to accept only those texts which amplified that belief and amplified
their own interpretation of what God was saying. They made no specific
statement regarding "all official texts ---- from 485 to 1659"
Man, I hate supporting the KJV only crowd, but fact is fact.
Despite the heretic approach by Westcott-Hort, God saw to it that the
"gospel" prevailed and let men argue over men's religious things.
Jim Sheffield
revised all official church texts based on his never
documented theory that a recension or conflation was
made of the official Greek Church text which would have
been politically and physically impossible in the ancient
world. Burgon defended the historical texts of the churches.
> > Metzger's "New Testament" for a defense of the neologan
> > texts or are you one of those who hasn't studied the issue,
> > and just wants to throw stones? Study to be approved, then let us
> > reason together. God bless!
>
> I seriously do NOT defend the NIV. It has too many errors.
Do you defend the theory that all official church texts
were corrupted between 385 and 1859? inquiring minds
want to know?
But to call
> Vaticanus, the LXX and the Vulgate "neologan texts" is to just be plain
> obtuse. I have ALL of these versions and study them all. But when I see
> people making fools of themselves by following idolatrous hate-mongers,
> then I speak out.
>
Hoskier showed their were 3000 major differences between
Vaticanus and Sinaticus alone. Cardinal Ximmenes didn't
make copies of vaticanus for his Greek edition of the NT.
Erasmus rejected readings from vaticanus which he received
2 years before his 5th edition. Miller an Oxford scholar
used the term and Burgon a fine scholar never used Ad
Hominem attacks against Anthony Hort has you have against
me; shame on you!
> And personally, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible for an English
> translation. But I don't worship it and I don't rely on it exclusively.
Its based on texts based on the Westcott-Hort theory, so your
ad hominem attacks were to avoid stating your true position.
Study to be approved, then let us reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Askjo
>
> "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:6YfI8.10082$Jm.61...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> > Lucifer means shining one as NWT, JW's Bible said. I agree with it but
I
> > reject NWT as a cult. Lux in Latin means light. Ferre in Latin means
> > carry or bear. Lucifer means a light bearer or a shining one. Lucifer
is
> > the one who bears light.
> >
> > Askjo
>
> Well, scholar, Lucifer is, was, not Satan.
Pardon me, I am not a scholar. :-)
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
Burgon INVENTS a conspiracy of scribes in the 2nd century in Alexandria out
of WHOLE CLOTH to defend his attachment to the Byzantine text. That's
revisionism. Saying that it is does NOT constitute an ad hominem attack on
the man. It constitutes an observation of the major flaw in his claims.
> revised all official church texts based on his never
> documented theory that a recension or conflation was
> made of the official Greek Church text which would have
> been politically and physically impossible in the ancient
> world. Burgon defended the historical texts of the churches.
Actually, by the 9th century, the period from which we have the earliest
recensions of the Byzantine text, it was entirely possible politically and
I don't see what your physical objection could possibly be.
>> > Metzger's "New Testament" for a defense of the neologan
>> > texts or are you one of those who hasn't studied the issue,
>> > and just wants to throw stones? Study to be approved, then let us
>> > reason together. God bless!
>>
>> I seriously do NOT defend the NIV. It has too many errors.
>
> Do you defend the theory that all official church texts
> were corrupted between 385 and 1859? inquiring minds
> want to know?
Nope.
>> But to call
>> Vaticanus, the LXX and the Vulgate "neologan texts" is to just be
>> plain obtuse. I have ALL of these versions and study them all. But
>> when I see people making fools of themselves by following idolatrous
>> hate-mongers, then I speak out.
> Hoskier showed their were 3000 major differences between
> Vaticanus and Sinaticus alone. Cardinal Ximmenes didn't
> make copies of vaticanus for his Greek edition of the NT.
> Erasmus rejected readings from vaticanus which he received
> 2 years before his 5th edition. Miller an Oxford scholar
> used the term and Burgon a fine scholar never used Ad
> Hominem attacks against Anthony Hort has you have against
> me; shame on you!
Seems to me that Vaticanus is older than Erasmus or Hort by just about 1500
years. And so what? There are thousands MORE differences between those
and Erasmus' text. The fact that there are many copies of an error doesn't
make the error correct. And the fact is there is NO authoritative original
autograph to compare with. If we had those, and you could show some
systematic doctrinal revision of them, then maybe you would have a point.
But the only systematic doctrinal revision in sight here is Luther's.
The Church managed in the west with the Vulgate and in the east with the
LXX and its own rescension of the NT in the for centuries before anyone
heard of Luther, Erasmus, Hort or Westcott.
>> And personally, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible for an English
>> translation. But I don't worship it and I don't rely on it
>> exclusively.
>
> Its based on texts based on the Westcott-Hort theory, so your
> ad hominem attacks were to avoid stating your true position.
> Study to be approved, then let us reason together. God bless!
What ad hominem attacks? You don't even KNOW my true position and at the
rate you are going you will not be able to find out because you simply
won't believe it. In fact, it seems YOUR argument is purely ad hominem,
since you use Westcott-Hort as an equivalent of "evil."
The NJB is simply (in my opinion) the best English translation the CHURCH
has been able to make into English and I don't know where you get your
history, but I would strongly suggest you dump all books from that source
into a handy fire and stop making war on God's Church.
> Pax Christi
As I said, bellum codicum is a more accurate description of your behaviour.
People need to read the Bible in a language they understand. The King
James version has become eclectic for the simple reason that the language
has evolved. *I* can understand it (I'm a Shakespeare fan) and maybe YOU
can understand it, but a lot of people are having trouble with it and this
will only get worse. I'll worry about the textual base of a translation
when it starts to affect core doctrine, not before.
Jim Sheffield
not Burgon's. These texts don't represent the text of the
Greek church of Alexandria which has the same text as the
other Greek churches. Burgun's main argument which you
don't mention is the readings of the Fathers including
some of Origen's are mainly traditional and also all the
official texts of the churches don't agree with these texts
thrown out in Egypt. Even the Vulgate has major differences
such as the ending of Mark and the woman taken in adultry
from these texts by unknown authors.
> > revised all official church texts based on his never
> > documented theory that a recension or conflation was
> > made of the official Greek Church text which would have
> > been politically and physically impossible in the ancient
> > world. Burgon defended the historical texts of the churches.
>
> Actually, by the 9th century, the period from which we have the earliest
> recensions of the Byzantine text, it was entirely possible politically and
> I don't see what your physical objection could possibly be.
>
The Peshitta(all admit its before the 9th) is a problem for you for one
and politicaly there is no record of it having been done.
You are INVENTING a great conspiracy to change the texts of
the Patriachies of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and
yes Alexandria.
> >> > Metzger's "New Testament" for a defense of the neologan
> >> > texts or are you one of those who hasn't studied the issue,
> >> > and just wants to throw stones? Study to be approved, then let us
> >> > reason together. God bless!
> >>
> >> I seriously do NOT defend the NIV. It has too many errors.
> >
> > Do you defend the theory that all official church texts
> > were corrupted between 385 and 1859? inquiring minds
> > want to know?
>
> Nope.
>
Abobe you claimed a secret recension, you contradict yourself.
> >> But to call
> >> Vaticanus, the LXX and the Vulgate "neologan texts" is to just be
> >> plain obtuse. I have ALL of these versions and study them all. But
> >> when I see people making fools of themselves by following idolatrous
> >> hate-mongers, then I speak out.
>
> > Hoskier showed their were 3000 major differences between
> > Vaticanus and Sinaticus alone. Cardinal Ximmenes didn't
> > make copies of vaticanus for his Greek edition of the NT.
> > Erasmus rejected readings from vaticanus which he received
> > 2 years before his 5th edition. Miller an Oxford scholar
> > used the term and Burgon a fine scholar never used Ad
> > Hominem attacks against Anthony Hort has you have against
> > me; shame on you!
>
> Seems to me that Vaticanus is older than Erasmus or Hort by just about 1500
> years. And so what? There are thousands MORE differences between those
> and Erasmus' text. The fact that there are many copies of an error doesn't
> make the error correct. And the fact is there is NO authoritative original
> autograph to compare with. If we had those, and you could show some
> systematic doctrinal revision of them, then maybe you would have a point.
> But the only systematic doctrinal revision in sight here is Luther's.
>
Burgon showed in his Revision Revised if you actually did read it,
that there is a concordance of discordance among the texts Hort
used. Why didn't the churches copy them and read them in the
churches? Maybe they knew their corrupt nature? One Father
said ancient heresy is no better than modern heresy.
> The Church managed in the west with the Vulgate and in the east with the
> LXX and its own rescension of the NT in the for centuries before anyone
> heard of Luther, Erasmus, Hort or Westcott.
>
Again you claim a recension that no one ever heard of before
Greisbach, stop INVENTING conspiracies that's revisionism.
> >> And personally, I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible for an English
> >> translation. But I don't worship it and I don't rely on it
> >> exclusively.
> >
> > Its based on texts based on the Westcott-Hort theory, so your
> > ad hominem attacks were to avoid stating your true position.
> > Study to be approved, then let us reason together. God bless!
>
> What ad hominem attacks? You don't even KNOW my true position and at the
> rate you are going you will not be able to find out because you simply
> won't believe it. In fact, it seems YOUR argument is purely ad hominem,
> since you use Westcott-Hort as an equivalent of "evil."
>
I said it's based on Greek texts based on the Westcott-Hort
nothing about its translation that's a non sequitur and if
I don't agree with someone's theory doesn't mean that person
is evil another non sequitur.
> The NJB is simply (in my opinion) the best English translation the CHURCH
> has been able to make into English and I don't know where you get your
> history, but I would strongly suggest you dump all books from that source
> into a handy fire and stop making war on God's Church.
>
You are the one making war on God's Church by claiming recension's
of the texts of the Grrek Church that the Orthodox Church
never heard of. Your proof by mere assertion is a falacy.
> > Pax Christi
>
> As I said, bellum codicum is a more accurate description of your behaviour.
> People need to read the Bible in a language they understand. The King
> James version has become eclectic for the simple reason that the language
> has evolved. *I* can understand it (I'm a Shakespeare fan) and maybe YOU
> can understand it, but a lot of people are having trouble with it and this
> will only get worse. I'll worry about the textual base of a translation
> when it starts to affect core doctrine, not before.
A true fact; I was trying to teach my two boys to read the
Bible using the niv, they showed no interest. So I took
them to an old woman and she taught them using the AV.
These attacks on great scholars and anyone who dares
question these modern Bible versions is reminisent of the
inquisition. Why can't we dialogue like two Christian
Gentlemen. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Askjo
> Seems to me that Vaticanus is older than Erasmus or Hort by just about
1500
> years.
The Vaticanus text is the "Catholic" text because this term is clearly seen
this spell. ~Vatican~us is the city of Roman Catholic church. Then Hort is
a closet Catholic likewise Westcott. That explains the term itself,
"Catholic." Are you Catholic? or Do you defend the Catholic system?
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
That's nice. I hope that good Elizabethan English never dies altogether.
But if you doubt me, just go "axe" the first "dude" you see getting on the
bus.
> These attacks on great scholars and anyone who dares
> question these modern Bible versions is reminisent of the
> inquisition. Why can't we dialogue like two Christian
> Gentlemen. God bless!
Because when scholars, great or small, become obsessed with something they
don't like, they are apt to be as objective as a used car salesman.
I don't suggest anyone reject the KJV. In fact, I rather like its prose.
But it is no longer PLAIN LANGUAGE and modern translations are all we have.
If you think you can improve on the NJB, feel free to try. But don't get
hostile if I quote it unless you have a real doctrinal beef.
Actually we probably have a bigger beef between the 1611KJV (which I
prefer) and the latter-day versions of it published after about 1800 which
omit the deutercanonical materials.
Dave Oldridge
news:MktJ8.1743$zh2.1...@twister.neo.rr.com:
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> message news:Xns921C21A99C696...@142.77.1.194...
>
>> Seems to me that Vaticanus is older than Erasmus or Hort by just
>> about
> 1500
>> years.
>
> The Vaticanus text is the "Catholic" text because this term is clearly
> seen this spell. ~Vatican~us is the city of Roman Catholic church.
> Then Hort is a closet Catholic likewise Westcott. That explains the
> term itself, "Catholic." Are you Catholic? or Do you defend the
> Catholic system?
Your bigotry is waving in the wind for all to see. The Church IS catholic.
Vaticanus happens to be called that because it is the prize possession of
the Vatican library. So THAT's what all this noise is about. You just
can't let go of your rebellion against the Church.
I reiterate:
>> The Church managed in the west with the Vulgate and in the east with
>> the LXX and its own rescension of the NT in the for centuries before
>> anyone heard of Luther, Erasmus, Hort or Westcott.
--
Askjo
>
> Your bigotry is waving in the wind for all to see. The Church IS
catholic.
> Vaticanus happens to be called that because it is the prize possession of
> the Vatican library. So THAT's what all this noise is about. You just
> can't let go of your rebellion against the Church.
The Catholic system defends the Vaticanus manuscript because this manuscript
is not TR.
Askjo
benho...@mindspring.com
>
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
> news:94210c86.0205...@posting.google.com:
<snip>
> > A true fact; I was trying to teach my two boys to read the
> > Bible using the niv, they showed no interest. So I took
> > them to an old woman and she taught them using the AV.
>
> That's nice. I hope that good Elizabethan English never dies altogether.
> But if you doubt me, just go "axe" the first "dude" you see getting on the
> bus.
When my son was attending a public high school in Texas,
the English class did a short bit on Shakespeare. He was
the only one in the class that was not thrown by the
language because he'd become accustomed to KJV we use
at church and at home.
There's something about those words . . .
<snip>
Jim Sheffield
Your need to call scholars you don't agree with "obsessed"
is probably projection on your part. Scholars discuss issues
all the time, why won't you?
> I don't suggest anyone reject the KJV. In fact, I rather like its prose.
> But it is no longer PLAIN LANGUAGE and modern translations are all we have.
> If you think you can improve on the NJB, feel free to try. But don't get
> hostile if I quote it unless you have a real doctrinal beef.
>
"hostle", there's your projection again. I am trying to dialogue
on the Bible version issue.
> Actually we probably have a bigger beef between the 1611KJV (which I
> prefer) and the latter-day versions of it published after about 1800 which
> omit the deutercanonical materials.
We are NOT talking about the deutercanonical materials,
but the rejection of texts used by orthodox churches
througout the centuries. Your avoidance of the issue and
your need to smear fine scholars like Burgon by using smear
words like "conspiracy", "Obbsessed", "hostile"..etc shows
you can't answer the FACTS I presented. Study to be approved,
then let us reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Dave Oldridge
news:c2BJ8.2050$zh2.2...@twister.neo.rr.com:
Well, so much for logic OR truth. The RCC defends this manuscript, likely
because it is the same one St. Jerome used to translate the Vulgate. They
have had it in their possession since well before the TR was a gleam in the
eye of the Catholic scholar, Erasmus.
So, which KJV do you put up on the pedestal and worship? The original 17th
century 1611 version with Apocrypha, the 18th century, or the more usual
19th century version? Not that it matters much. Idolatry is idolatry.
Dave Oldridge
news:3CF709C4...@Mindspring.com:
Those Elizabethan poets and writers did have a certain power of expression.
Not just Shakespeare, but Kit Marlowe, too. And the scholars who
translated the KJV were familiar to the bone with that mode of expression.
Dave Oldridge
I don't REJECT anything, Jim. It is you who is suggesting we ignore the
three OLDEST Bibles in existence. Bring original autographs to the table
and, they will certainly take precedence, but given the situation we are
in, I will ignore NOTHING that is reasonably evidential. And believe me,
there is just as much patristic support for the "Alexandrian" readings as
there is for the Byzantine.
Jim Sheffield
My study of the evidence is different. Miller(the editor of Burgon)
did a study of Patristic quotes before Chrysostom and found a 3 to
2 majority for the traditional text. Dr. Hills who got a Ph. D.
from Harvard and had studied under Colwell at Chicago found that
texts discovered since Miller's time would not change the results
significantly. If you took out the quotes from clement of Alexandria
and Origen the traditional text does even better.
You have not cited any document from the Greek Orthodox church
that mentions a recention of their NT text. We have the names
of many translators such as Jerome, Tomas of Herkla, Marob,
Cyril, Methodius, and others, but no recension; It is just the myth of Greisbach,
Lachmann, and passed on by Anthony Hort. You never did respond to
why orthodox scribes overwhelming copied texts that don't agree
with vaticanus and sinaticus from 385 A.D. to 1859. Maybe those
orthodox scribes knew the corrupt nature of those texts and I
doubt the Holy Ghost left from 385 to 1859. Study to be approved,
then let us reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Dave Oldridge
Askjo
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
> news:94210c86.02053...@posting.google.com:
>
> http://www.revneal.org/Writings/errorof.htm
> --
> Dave Oldridge
Aland, Kurt & Barbara Aland. Carson, D.A. Comfort, Philip W. Fee, Gordon
D. Finegan, Jack Greenlee, J. Harold. James, Kevin. Kenyon, F.G.
Metzger, Bruce M. Pickering, Wilbur N. and Daniel Wallace are naturalistic
authors and inconsistently Christians. These authors are NOT honest
because they defended their modern versions and rejected the fact on
Biblical manuscripts reflecting the TR/KJV and the CT/Modern Versions.
Ask yourself, WHY is Bruce M. Metzger an UNBELIEVER himself? This is a
FACT!!!!
Ask yourself, WHY did Aland deny that the KJV is ACCURATE translation and
hide the TR fact? This is a FACT!!!!
Ask yourself, WHY did Daniel Wallace NOT believe in the PRESERVATION of the
SCRIPTURE? This is a FACT!!!!
Ask yourself, WHY is this website above to favor these names above than
those names defending the TR/KJV?
Rev. Dr. Gregory S. Neal DID NOT LIST NAMES DEFENDING THE TR?KJV. Ask
yourself, WHY? This author IS a naturalistic and inconsistently Christian
man.
Askjo
Chuck Bridgeland
>
>"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns922013FE9C1F0...@142.77.1.194...
>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
>> news:94210c86.02053...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> http://www.revneal.org/Writings/errorof.htm
> > --
>> Dave Oldridge
>
>Aland, Kurt & Barbara Aland. Carson, D.A. Comfort, Philip W. Fee, Gordon
>D. Finegan, Jack Greenlee, J. Harold. James, Kevin. Kenyon, F.G.
>Metzger, Bruce M. Pickering, Wilbur N. and Daniel Wallace are naturalistic
>authors and inconsistently Christians. These authors are NOT honest
>because they defended their modern versions and rejected the fact on
>Biblical manuscripts reflecting the TR/KJV and the CT/Modern Versions.
>
>Ask yourself, WHY is Bruce M. Metzger an UNBELIEVER himself? This is a
>FACT!!!!
I suggest you read this re Mr. Metzger:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/metzger.htm
>"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of
>delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - what has all this done
>to your personal faith?" I asked.
>
>"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, 'it has increased the
>basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials
>have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very,
>very ancient."
>
>"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"
>
>He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he
>stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into
>text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my
>trust in Jesus has been well placed."
>
>He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis,
>"Very well placed." (Strobel, p. 93)
--
The major advantage to living on a planet is, if you lose your
civilization, you don't also lose your atmosphere.
chuck bridgeland, chuckbri at computerdyn dot com
http://www.essex1.com/people/chuckbri/chuckbri.key
Askjo
"Chuck Bridgeland" <chuc...@computerdyn.com> wrote in message
news:slrnafiu42....@lennier.chuckbri.org...
What real problem does Bruce Metzger have on the Bible is his unbelief.
I think you would like to read the amazing fact about him on the website:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ubstrans.htm
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
news:HzdK8.6986$zh2.3...@twister.neo.rr.com:
Ask yourself why your only response to this was a series of argumentum ad
hominem fallacies.
In a long career, I have learned that when logical fallacies start
appearing in a debate, the debate is already over.
Have fun explaining to God why you don't want to share heaven with Catholic
saints (I want to watch that debate, actually!)
Askjo
> Ask yourself why your only response to this was a series of argumentum ad
> hominem fallacies.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/lovethekjv.htm
>
> In a long career, I have learned that when logical fallacies start
> appearing in a debate, the debate is already over.
You do not agree with Jim Sheffield because he advised you to read Burgon's
books, Miller's books, like that. I read both sides reflecting the textual
criticism until I found the Biblical manuscript evidences. Jeff sent me
some information what I asked him. I thanked Jeff for great help. Dave, I
agree with Jeff Sheffield because we are consistently Christians.
Edward F. Hills on his book, "the King James Version Defended" wrote:
"If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion
against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving
thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid
rock of holy Scripture."
"The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament
textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration
and providential preservation of the Scriptures."
"The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with
its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book."
"Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest
in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism.
For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in
this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort. ....so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian
thought and produced a spiritual famine."
"The logic of faith shows us the inconsistencies and absurdities of
unbelieving Bible study."
>
> Have fun explaining to God why you don't want to share heaven with
Catholic
> saints (I want to watch that debate, actually!)
I do share God's Word with my Catholics friends and Catholics relatives on
the earth in my past lifetime. So is still today. So will be future. I'll
give the account of myself to God when I stand before the Judgment Seat of
Jesus Christ. If I fail, will you blame on me?
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
news:FghK8.7362$zh2.4...@twister.neo.rr.com:
Why would someone want to PAY to be lied to by idolatrous heretics?
Dave Oldridge
news:7ViK8.7382$zh2.4...@twister.neo.rr.com:
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> message news:Xns9221FB367AF7...@142.77.1.194...
>
>> Ask yourself why your only response to this was a series of
>> argumentum ad hominem fallacies.
>
> http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/lovethekjv.htm
I DO love the KJV, moron. I just don't worship it as the be-all and end-
all of Bible translations. And I take modern versions each on their
merits. The NIV has egregious errors of translation, even varying from the
Greek text used by the translators. I've made the same tests of the New
Jerusalum Bible and can't find any. But then I have a LOT of non-modern
versions here to compare with and don't mind referring to the Greek a lot.
My Hebrew is not as good, but I can muddle along with good dictionaries,
lexicons and other materials.
>> In a long career, I have learned that when logical fallacies start
>> appearing in a debate, the debate is already over.
> You do not agree with Jim Sheffield because he advised you to read
> Burgon's books, Miller's books, like that. I read both sides
No, I don't agree with him because I've read good summaries of those
arguments and those against them and I disagree. There are good grounds
for considering BOTH the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings and that's why
I keep them on hand.
> reflecting the textual criticism until I found the Biblical manuscript
> evidences. Jeff sent me some information what I asked him. I thanked
> Jeff for great help. Dave, I agree with Jeff Sheffield because we are
> consistently Christians.
No, you agree with him because you are both the same kind of heretics.
> Edward F. Hills on his book, "the King James Version Defended" wrote:
>
> "If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion
> against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving
> thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the
> solid rock of holy Scripture."
You have done what God told you not to. You have changed Him into a
different god. Your god is the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible.
Some traditionalists have done the same error, making their god the Father,
the Son and the Holy Church. But you know, both of these are types of
idolatry. You have two thirds of a god and it shows...
> "The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New
> Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the
> divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures."
The consistently Christian method also holds to the traditions of the
Church that have been in place since Jesus laid hands on the apostles.
> "The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance
> with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a
> human book."
Incorrect. The Church has NEVER claimed that the New Testament is devoid
of divine inspiration, though we damn well KNOW it is a "human book"
because the humans who wrote it are also the humans who founded our
tradition. You accuse us of "worshipping saints." We do not. But YOU
worship their writings. Worse, you worship the interpreters of your own
tradition (pretending you don't even have one) and try to filter God
through all that baggage. And you wonder why we think you are heretics?
Actually, this is two heresies. It started with Luther's act of taking
scissors to the Bible and declaring "sola scriptura" for the remaining
parts. But latter-day "reformers" in the USA took another step with it, in
the 19th century. Adding "sola scriptura ad litteram" to it. Neither
doctrine meets its own test, though.
> "Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little
> interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament
> textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been
> quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of
> Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. ....so the principles
> and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have
> spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a
> spiritual famine."
The only spiritual famine is your rebellion from the Church.
> "The logic of faith shows us the inconsistencies and absurdities of
> unbelieving Bible study."
So, in order to "understand" the error, I must first believe it! Hah!
>> Have fun explaining to God why you don't want to share heaven with
>> Catholic
>> saints (I want to watch that debate, actually!)
>
> I do share God's Word with my Catholics friends and Catholics
> relatives on the earth in my past lifetime. So is still today. So
> will be future. I'll give the account of myself to God when I stand
> before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ. If I fail, will you blame
> on me?
Nope...I'll just be unhappy that you didn't listen to my warning.
Still, it should be entertaining. You see, the habits you make in this
life will extend into the next. This is why purgatory is choked with
Protestants who believe they are in hell.
Askjo
> "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in
> news:7ViK8.7382$zh2.4...@twister.neo.rr.com:
>
> >
> > "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> > message news:Xns9221FB367AF7...@142.77.1.194...
> >
> >> Ask yourself why your only response to this was a series of
> >> argumentum ad hominem fallacies.
> >
> > http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/lovethekjv.htm
>
> I DO love the KJV, moron.
That's good! Good boy! :-)
> I just don't worship it
You do not have to worship it, except the Creator only.
as the be-all and end-
> all of Bible translations. And I take modern versions each on their
> merits. The NIV has egregious errors of translation, even varying from
the
> Greek text used by the translators. I've made the same tests of the New
> Jerusalum Bible and can't find any. But then I have a LOT of non-modern
> versions here to compare with and don't mind referring to the Greek a lot.
>
> My Hebrew is not as good, but I can muddle along with good dictionaries,
> lexicons and other materials.
>
> >> In a long career, I have learned that when logical fallacies start
> >> appearing in a debate, the debate is already over.
>
> > You do not agree with Jim Sheffield because he advised you to read
> > Burgon's books, Miller's books, like that. I read both sides
>
> No, I don't agree with him because I've read good summaries of those
> arguments and those against them and I disagree. There are good grounds
> for considering BOTH the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings and that's why
> I keep them on hand.
Byzantine readings and Alexandrian readings are much different because of
their lineage back to the originals. Their lineages did not agree each
others because these heretics in ancient times mutilated many Scriptures.
>
> > reflecting the textual criticism until I found the Biblical manuscript
> > evidences. Jeff sent me some information what I asked him. I thanked
> > Jeff for great help. Dave, I agree with Jeff Sheffield because we are
> > consistently Christians.
>
> No, you agree with him because you are both the same kind of heretics.
That's not true because Jim and I have logic of faith.
>
> > Edward F. Hills on his book, "the King James Version Defended" wrote:
> >
> > "If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion
> > against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving
> > thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the
> > solid rock of holy Scripture."
>
> You have done what God told you not to. You have changed Him into a
> different god.
What did you say this is what I did not say.
Your god is the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible.
> Some traditionalists have done the same error, making their god the
Father,
> the Son and the Holy Church. But you know, both of these are types of
> idolatry. You have two thirds of a god and it shows...
The Word of God refers to two living revelations: the living INCARNATE Word
and the living WRITTEN Word. Let's see what problem between them is. If a
person denies the WRITTEN Word, he also denies the INCARNATE Word. An
example is Dr. Bruce Metzger. He rejected one passage, the WRITTEN Word of
God, in the Old Testament referring to the prophecy of Jesus Christ then he
also denies this prophecy of Jesus Christ, the INCARNATE Word. This shows
very obviously that he is an unbeliever.
>
> > "The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New
> > Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the
> > divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures."
>
> The consistently Christian method also holds to the traditions of the
> Church that have been in place since Jesus laid hands on the apostles.
>
> > "The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance
> > with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a
> > human book."
>
> Incorrect. The Church has NEVER claimed that the New Testament is devoid
> of divine inspiration, though we damn well KNOW it is a "human book"
> because the humans who wrote it are also the humans who founded our
> tradition. You accuse us of "worshipping saints." We do not. But YOU
> worship their writings.
Worship their writings? No, I know which version is most accurate likewise
many foreign accurate Bibles.
Worse, you worship the interpreters of your own
> tradition (pretending you don't even have one) and try to filter God
> through all that baggage. And you wonder why we think you are heretics?>
> Actually, this is two heresies. It started with Luther's act of taking
> scissors to the Bible and declaring "sola scriptura" for the remaining
> parts. But latter-day "reformers" in the USA took another step with it,
in
> the 19th century. Adding "sola scriptura ad litteram" to it. Neither
> doctrine meets its own test, though.
>
> > "Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little
> > interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament
> > textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been
> > quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of
> > Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. ....so the principles
> > and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have
> > spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a
> > spiritual famine."
>
> The only spiritual famine is your rebellion from the Church.
I favor my rebellion for God than the Church.
>
> > "The logic of faith shows us the inconsistencies and absurdities of
> > unbelieving Bible study."
>
> So, in order to "understand" the error, I must first believe it! Hah!
Compare 2 sides as what Jim Sheffield told you?
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
news:KeCK8.9487$zh2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com:
And that's where we disagree. There is no evidence here of the systematic
tampering that you get from heretics (such as the NWT's mistranslating John
1:1). There are omissions, additions, copying errors in BOTH streams and
the value of any manuscript in this case is not a question of doctrinal
orthodoxy so much as how many generations of copies it is removed from the
original autograph.
>> > reflecting the textual criticism until I found the Biblical
>> > manuscript evidences. Jeff sent me some information what I asked
>> > him. I thanked Jeff for great help. Dave, I agree with Jeff
>> > Sheffield because we are consistently Christians.
>>
>> No, you agree with him because you are both the same kind of
>> heretics.
>
> That's not true because Jim and I have logic of faith.
Faith in what? What a lot of rather noisy and fanatical people say about
texts that were copied 1600 years before they were born on the basis that
they disagree with other texts that were copied a few years later somewhere
else?
>> > Edward F. Hills on his book, "the King James Version Defended"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > "If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred
>> > religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of
>> > unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests
>> > entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture."
>>
>> You have done what God told you not to. You have changed Him into a
>> different god.
>
> What did you say this is what I did not say.
You say it with one sentence and then retract it with another.
> Your god is the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible.
>> Some traditionalists have done the same error, making their god the
> Father,
>> the Son and the Holy Church. But you know, both of these are types
>> of idolatry. You have two thirds of a god and it shows...
>
> The Word of God refers to two living revelations: the living INCARNATE
> Word and the living WRITTEN Word. Let's see what problem between
> them is. If a person denies the WRITTEN Word, he also denies the
> INCARNATE Word. An example is Dr. Bruce Metzger. He rejected one
This is RANK heresy, sir. It is not in any of the ancient creeds. It is
not in scripture anywhere. Where DID you get it?
> passage, the WRITTEN Word of God, in the Old Testament referring to
> the prophecy of Jesus Christ then he also denies this prophecy of
> Jesus Christ, the INCARNATE Word. This shows very obviously that he
> is an unbeliever.
I rest my case. You have convicted yourself. You have made your book a
god and now you claim that those who do not worship it are in the outer
darkness that you yourself have moved into. Do not be deceived. The devil
knows every word of the KJV and, by taking a verse here and a verse there
is well able to construct any false doctrines he needs to bring you down
into the pit.
I would pretty much guarantee that your tradition does not extend earlier
than the anabaptists of the 16th century and that such "tradition" of
earlier connections it has is a pure fabrication.
>> > "The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New
>> > Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the
>> > divine inspiration and providential preservation of the
>> > Scriptures."
>>
>> The consistently Christian method also holds to the traditions of the
>> Church that have been in place since Jesus laid hands on the
>> apostles.
>>
>> > "The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in
>> > accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing
>> > more than a human book."
>>
>> Incorrect. The Church has NEVER claimed that the New Testament is
>> devoid of divine inspiration, though we damn well KNOW it is a "human
>> book" because the humans who wrote it are also the humans who founded
>> our tradition. You accuse us of "worshipping saints." We do not.
>> But YOU worship their writings.
>
> Worship their writings? No, I know which version is most accurate
> likewise many foreign accurate Bibles.
No, you know what your false teachers tell you to know. You don't actually
KNOW much at all. Pity. It's bad enough that most Protestants in these
USA-based movements are under the illusion that Christianity died with the
apostles only to be resurrected by Luther, but it's gotten worse. Some of
you are spreading actual lies about history and insisting that they are
truth and some of you will go down to hell rather than relinquish your
idols. It IS a pity, really, because your mentors have turned a God of
love into a reason to hate.
>> Worse, you worship the interpreters of your own
>> tradition (pretending you don't even have one) and try to filter God
>> through all that baggage. And you wonder why we think you are
>> heretics?> Actually, this is two heresies. It started with Luther's
>> act of taking scissors to the Bible and declaring "sola scriptura"
>> for the remaining parts. But latter-day "reformers" in the USA took
>> another step with it,
> in
>> the 19th century. Adding "sola scriptura ad litteram" to it.
>> Neither doctrine meets its own test, though.
>>
>> > "Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little
>> > interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament
>> > textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been
>> > quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of
>> > Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. ....so the
>> > principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual
>> > criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought
>> > and produced a spiritual famine."
>>
>> The only spiritual famine is your rebellion from the Church.
>
> I favor my rebellion for God than the Church.
Your rebellion is AGAINST God and His Church. You seem to think otherwise,
but the fact is, I can smell the sulphur from here.
>> > "The logic of faith shows us the inconsistencies and absurdities of
>> > unbelieving Bible study."
>>
>> So, in order to "understand" the error, I must first believe it!
>> Hah!
>
> Compare 2 sides as what Jim Sheffield told you?
I did. There are errors in this whole movement that trace right back to
the animosity of the early anabaptists to the wealthy class of their own
time. Of course THEY were socialists.
Askjo
History disagrees with you. Go to see the website:
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/kjvissue/history_branine.html
Tell Jim Sheffield.
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
news:sYQK8.10572$zh2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com:
>
> "Dave Oldridge" <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in
> message news:Xns92226371BDDFA...@142.77.1.194...
>> "Askjo" <Ao...@indy.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:KeCK8.9487$zh2.5...@twister.neo.rr.com:
> History disagrees with you. Go to see the website:
> http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/kjvissue/history_branine.html
History disagrees with YOU. Try reading something from outside your heresy
for a change.
Jim Sheffield
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
> news:94210c86.02053...@posting.google.com:
>
> http://www.revneal.org/Writings/errorof.htm
Dave,
I read your posing of the attack on the texts of the Greek
churches. I need to repeat a MAJOR point I made before
and was ignored on, while the scribes of the Greek churches
did have aposolic texts there was no Byzantine Imperial Text.
Birdsall a supporter of the neologan texts proved this in
1956. It is time for those scholars to get up to date.
When Birdsall realized this he wrote, "It is evident that
all presuppositions conserning the Byzantine text-or texts-
except its inferiority to other types, must be doubted and investigated
de novo." Talk about idolatry, all the premises are wrong but
these scholars still hold to their conclusion. Dave that's
why I am trying to dialogue with you to explain their is NO
record of a recension of the text of the Greek churches, it's
just mythology and scholars who keep repeating an untruth don't
make it true.
To show how difficult it would be when Jerome's translation
of Job was read in a church in North Africa the change of
one word "gourd" to "ivy" creared riots and bishops in North
Africa asked Augustine of Hippo to write Jerome about what was
going on. Yet, the document you posted asks me to believe a
recension of the entire texts of the Greek Churches was done
without any record in history of it occuring.
One point that Codex Alexandrius was the type of text used
by Jerome was made by Burgon in "The Revision Revised" but
not credited to him. Guess they don't want to give Burgon
any credit, maybe they are biased?
One point, when Jerome was working on the vulgate, he was
fighting with the Bishop of Jerusalem, so Jerome would not
have had access to the Apostolic texts of Jerusalem and
would have had to buy texts from the street.
Dave lets try to go over the points I have raised and try
to think de novo on the issue. God bless!
Jim
Dave Oldridge
Jerome spent 23 years in toto translating scripture into Latin. I think he
probably knew what he was doing. It's a remarkable effort really when you
consider the turbulent nature of the times. Until Theodosius I took the
reigns, emperors were coming and going in typical late Roman fashion, with
each new emperor killing off all rival claimants to the throne. This was
happening both in the east and the west. And I sincerely doubt that Jerome
was on the outs with the Bishop of Jerusalem the whole time he was working
in Antioch, not to mention that there was likely a repository of apostolic
materials or close copies of them right there.
The Latin Church used Jerome's Bible for 1000 years without much
difficulty. Indeed, it was not Erasmus' intent to replace it with the TR,
but to amplify it.
So which doctrines do you think are affected by your claims?
Jim Sheffield
was in Bethlehem from his letters and about his dispute
with John of Jerusalem. I am not arguing that Jerome's
effort wasn't great but orthodox texts weren't allowed
out of the churches. Jerome did defend the women taken
in Adultery which he writes was ripped out by people
who felt adultery shouldn't be forgivin and he does include
the long ending of Mark, both of which are NOT in vaticanus,
although the scribe of vaticanus left room for the long ending
of Mark.
> The Latin Church used Jerome's Bible for 1000 years without much
> difficulty. Indeed, it was not Erasmus' intent to replace it with the TR,
> but to amplify it.
>
Yeah, it is way better than the modern versions, but the
scholarship of the Magisterial Reformers who risked their
lives for the Faith preferred the TR as far supperior.
> So which doctrines do you think are affected by your claims?
By rejecting "God manifest in the flesh" for "who' they
are bringing in the gnostic demiurge an ancient heresy again!
You made no comment when I refuted the false claims of
a Greek recension of their texts, why are you dodging
the issue. Tyndale was burned at the atake for his translation,
so both Tyndale and Thomas More thought it was important.At least
they both believed TRUTH was important, but then they weren't
Poatmodernists. Study to be approved, then let us reason together.
God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
FYI We have a very goog idea of the Apostolic text of Antioch,
since Bishop John Chrysostom's sermon's at Antioch were
taken down in shorthand and both Anthony Hort and Gordon
Fee agree it's close to the traditional text. Chrysostom
uses "Good will among(towards) men" which Jerome doesn't
for instance.
Dave Oldridge
"Magisterial Reformers?"
>> So which doctrines do you think are affected by your claims?
>
> By rejecting "God manifest in the flesh" for "who' they
> are bringing in the gnostic demiurge an ancient heresy again!
Not so you would notice in Catholic theology.
> You made no comment when I refuted the false claims of
> a Greek recension of their texts, why are you dodging
> the issue. Tyndale was burned at the atake for his translation,
> so both Tyndale and Thomas More thought it was important.At least
> they both believed TRUTH was important, but then they weren't
> Poatmodernists. Study to be approved, then let us reason together.
> God bless!
Given the importance of scripture, even to non-bibliolatrous Catholics, it
is not surprising that arguments over translation led to violence. But you
are defending, essentially, the Byzantine text against what you call the
Alexandrian and CLAIMING that the Alexandrian was systematically doctored.
> Pax Christi
> Jim
>
> FYI We have a very goog idea of the Apostolic text of Antioch,
> since Bishop John Chrysostom's sermon's at Antioch were
> taken down in shorthand and both Anthony Hort and Gordon
> Fee agree it's close to the traditional text. Chrysostom
> uses "Good will among(towards) men" which Jerome doesn't
> for instance.
So? The more I discover about these disputes is that both sides have
errors in them. That's why I try to examine all versions. At least I know
what when they ALL agree there is not much left to debate about.
For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me, is the
defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well as the
prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
Askjo
"Jim Sheffield" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
> FYI We have a very goog idea of the Apostolic text of Antioch,
> since Bishop John Chrysostom's sermon's at Antioch were
> taken down in shorthand and both Anthony Hort and Gordon
> Fee agree it's close to the traditional text. Chrysostom
> uses "Good will among(towards) men" which Jerome doesn't
> for instance.
Pardon me, please send me this sermon at Antioch agreeing with the
traditional text.
Askjo
Jim Sheffield
Those who were for the testimony(i.e. protestant in Latin)
of the church Universal and Apostolic. It is a common
term for the learned Protestants as opposed to the Anabaptists.
Do you support the burning of Tyndale by More, for translating
the TR in the language of the people? Remember at Augsburg we
had a confession(1530) while their opponents had to have 15
years to come up with their new theology at Trent!
> >> So which doctrines do you think are affected by your claims?
> >
> > By rejecting "God manifest in the flesh" for "who' they
> > are bringing in the gnostic demiurge an ancient heresy again!
>
> Not so you would notice in Catholic theology.
>
By Catholic I hope you mean the Church Universal and not just
the Curia in vatican city. Yes, orthodox Christians of course
interpret it in an orthodox way but an ancient or modern gnostic
wouldn't. "God manifest in the flesh" is the universal testimony,
maybe even quoted by Ignatius of Antioch, of the Greek churches.
> > You made no comment when I refuted the false claims of
> > a Greek recension of their texts, why are you dodging
> > the issue. Tyndale was burned at the atake for his translation,
> > so both Tyndale and Thomas More thought it was important.At least
> > they both believed TRUTH was important, but then they weren't
> > Poatmodernists. Study to be approved, then let us reason together.
> > God bless!
>
> Given the importance of scripture, even to non-bibliolatrous Catholics, it
> is not surprising that arguments over translation led to violence. But you
> are defending, essentially, the Byzantine text against what you call the
> Alexandrian and CLAIMING that the Alexandrian was systematically doctored.
>
>
Must I repeat the Greek Church of Alexandria has the same text
with the long ending of Mark as other Greek churches do. The
name "Alexandrian" was given to them because they seem to follow
some of the quotes of the heretic Orogen. As for him being a heretic,
the church of Alexandria excomunicated him in his own lifetime and
two Egyption councils confirmed it and the 5th Ecumenical Council
condemned Origen's Doctrines. Burgon pointed out those texts are by
unknow authors and were not copied by the overwhelming majority of
orthodox churches; in legal terms they fit hearsay evidence.
> > Pax Christi
> > Jim
> >
> > FYI We have a very goog idea of the Apostolic text of Antioch,
> > since Bishop John Chrysostom's sermon's at Antioch were
> > taken down in shorthand and both Anthony Hort and Gordon
> > Fee agree it's close to the traditional text. Chrysostom
> > uses "Good will among(towards) men" which Jerome doesn't
> > for instance.
>
>
> So? The more I discover about these disputes is that both sides have
> errors in them. That's why I try to examine all versions. At least I know
> what when they ALL agree there is not much left to debate about.
>
If it's "Good will to men of good will" the doctrine of Grace
goes out the window. Both the Magisterial Reformers and the
followers of Trent both believed in TRUTH and they both felt
the debate between the vulgate and the TR was the difference
between heaven and hell; they weren't Poatmodernists.
> For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me, is the
> defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well as the
> prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
It is as long as they don't find in a carbage dump in Egypt a corrupt
copy of Matthew without that verse. Oh! yes, they did find a Coptic
version of the "gospel of Thomas" which the "Jesus Seminar" claims
is the "true gospel." Dave the issue won't go away as John Wesley said
were is the Book that gives me the Word of Life, do we have that
Book in our hands or do we need to ask modern day gnostics for our
salvation. Are you willing to dialog on the issue? You seem to be
spending a lot of time saying the issue is meaningless!
I do have "pope Stephanes"(i.e. a term used by the jesuits to insult
French Protestants because in theological arguments they went to
the Greek Text of the NT edited by Stephanes. Study to be approved,
then let us reason together. God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Dave Oldridge
I don't support the burning of heretics, but Tyndale was definitely a
candidate for excommunication on the ground of his making common cause with
Luther, who redacted scripture and enunciated heretical doctrines while
defying the authority of the Church. If Tyndale had been more careful and
stuck to following Erasmus, possibly things would have been better. And
I'm not 100% sure putting the Bible in the vernacular has been a good idea.
It has been badly abused by mountebanks, charlatans and demagogues ever
since. And note that Tyndale's version was not without some openly
political comment.
I wonder what popular protestant reaction would be in the USA if I was to
publish a translation of the Bible laced with comments on the evils of the
Republican Party? (And there is no shortage of those to mention).
>> >> So which doctrines do you think are affected by your claims?
>> >
>> > By rejecting "God manifest in the flesh" for "who' they
>> > are bringing in the gnostic demiurge an ancient heresy again!
>>
>> Not so you would notice in Catholic theology.
> By Catholic I hope you mean the Church Universal and not just
> the Curia in vatican city. Yes, orthodox Christians of course
> interpret it in an orthodox way but an ancient or modern gnostic
> wouldn't. "God manifest in the flesh" is the universal testimony,
> maybe even quoted by Ignatius of Antioch, of the Greek churches.
Of course, I mean Church Universal.
>> > You made no comment when I refuted the false claims of
>> > a Greek recension of their texts, why are you dodging
>> > the issue. Tyndale was burned at the atake for his translation,
>> > so both Tyndale and Thomas More thought it was important.At least
>> > they both believed TRUTH was important, but then they weren't
>> > Poatmodernists. Study to be approved, then let us reason together.
>> > God bless!
>> Given the importance of scripture, even to non-bibliolatrous
>> Catholics, it is not surprising that arguments over translation led
>> to violence. But you are defending, essentially, the Byzantine text
>> against what you call the Alexandrian and CLAIMING that the
>> Alexandrian was systematically doctored.
> Must I repeat the Greek Church of Alexandria has the same text
> with the long ending of Mark as other Greek churches do. The
> name "Alexandrian" was given to them because they seem to follow
> some of the quotes of the heretic Orogen. As for him being a
You must understand that Origen's heresy is somewhat moot. Indeed, it is
Origen's christology that illuminates most of Christianity today. Some of
his ideas are a bit over the edge, though and it is not hard to see why
they drew fire and eventual charges of heresy. And his work on the Old
Testament still stands as one of the more important pieces of ancient
scholarship. Although Origen did have some sort of clash with the bishop
of Alexandria towards the end of his time there, and was banished and
ousted from the priesthood, there is no record that it was on any point of
doctrine. None. Unfortunately, we lack Eusebius' second book on the
subject.
> heretic, the church of Alexandria excomunicated him in his own
> lifetime and two Egyption councils confirmed it and the 5th
> Ecumenical Council condemned Origen's Doctrines. Burgon pointed out
> those texts are by unknow authors and were not copied by the
> overwhelming majority of orthodox churches; in legal terms they fit
> hearsay evidence.
Actually, the BIG problem with Origen in the Church began at the end of the
4th Century, long after he was dead and buried. And much of what was then
being taught in Origen's name was not from him so much as from his latter-
day followers. Not only that, it's hard to see how you could claim that HE
was responsible for some redaction of scripture that became the Codex
Vaticanus which is clearly transcribed in a 4th century (probably early
4th) hand and which has been in the Vatican pretty much since then.
>> > Pax Christi
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > FYI We have a very goog idea of the Apostolic text of Antioch,
>> > since Bishop John Chrysostom's sermon's at Antioch were
>> > taken down in shorthand and both Anthony Hort and Gordon
>> > Fee agree it's close to the traditional text. Chrysostom
>> > uses "Good will among(towards) men" which Jerome doesn't
>> > for instance.
>>
>>
>> So? The more I discover about these disputes is that both sides have
>> errors in them. That's why I try to examine all versions. At least
>> I know what when they ALL agree there is not much left to debate
>> about.
> If it's "Good will to men of good will" the doctrine of Grace
> goes out the window. Both the Magisterial Reformers and the
> followers of Trent both believed in TRUTH and they both felt
> the debate between the vulgate and the TR was the difference
> between heaven and hell; they weren't Poatmodernists.
And I still may say a pox on both their houses. I'm more apt to take the
present-day followers of Chrysostom for authorities than any of Luther's
spawn, though.
>> For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me, is
>> the defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well as
>> the prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
> It is as long as they don't find in a carbage dump in Egypt a corrupt
> copy of Matthew without that verse. Oh! yes, they did find a Coptic
> version of the "gospel of Thomas" which the "Jesus Seminar" claims
> is the "true gospel." Dave the issue won't go away as John Wesley
> said were is the Book that gives me the Word of Life, do we have that
> Book in our hands or do we need to ask modern day gnostics for our
> salvation. Are you willing to dialog on the issue? You seem to be
> spending a lot of time saying the issue is meaningless!
If you need a book, then you do not have God. And any book that gives you
God is good enough. The trouble with all this version-beating is that it
is mostly a bunch of old men who never had a REAL spiritual experience in
their lives quibbling about which words go where in a book they don't
understand and don't want to.
Jim Sheffield
Here we disagree and this illustrate's the problem what objective
atandard do we use? The church has had only one objective standard
since both popes and councils have been wrong and that is the Bible.
We stlll have a problem what text is the correct one so we go
back to what this debate is about. I nominate the TR and in English
the translation done under the 47 pious scholars who all
signed the 39 Articles.
> I wonder what popular protestant reaction would be in the USA if I was to
> publish a translation of the Bible laced with comments on the evils of the
> Republican Party? (And there is no shortage of those to mention).
>
As a prolife Democrat(yes, we do exist), those feed the poor
verses would be a good place to start. Are THEY political?
Rebellion is a form of heresy.
The point is who is to be the standard you, me, or the correct
text of the Bible?
> >> For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me, is
> >> the defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well as
> >> the prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
>
> > It is as long as they don't find in a carbage dump in Egypt a corrupt
> > copy of Matthew without that verse. Oh! yes, they did find a Coptic
> > version of the "gospel of Thomas" which the "Jesus Seminar" claims
> > is the "true gospel." Dave the issue won't go away as John Wesley
> > said were is the Book that gives me the Word of Life, do we have that
> > Book in our hands or do we need to ask modern day gnostics for our
> > salvation. Are you willing to dialog on the issue? You seem to be
> > spending a lot of time saying the issue is meaningless!
>
> If you need a book, then you do not have God. And any book that gives you
> God is good enough. The trouble with all this version-beating is that it
> is mostly a bunch of old men who never had a REAL spiritual experience in
> their lives quibbling about which words go where in a book they don't
> understand and don't want to.
Am I to believe my experiences when I was in Eastern Religions
or my conversion experience of Jesus Christ of the Bible. Dave
you must remember the Holy Ghost always comes with the Word to
the glory of God the Father, we believe in one God not three, don't
divide the Trinity.
Again Dave we must have an objective standard and I noninate the
TR and in English the translation done unger the 47 scholars of
Blessed memory. Let the dialog begin and God bless!
Pax Christi
Jim
Dave Oldridge
> Dave Oldridge <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9228E52AB337B...@142.77.1.194>...
>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
>> news:94210c86.02060...@posting.google.com:
>> I don't support the burning of heretics, but Tyndale was definitely a
>> candidate for excommunication on the ground of his making common
>> cause with Luther, who redacted scripture and enunciated heretical
>> doctrines while defying the authority of the Church. If Tyndale had
>> been more careful and stuck to following Erasmus, possibly things
>> would have been better. And I'm not 100% sure putting the Bible in
>> the vernacular has been a good idea. It has been badly abused by
>> mountebanks, charlatans and demagogues ever since. And note that
>> Tyndale's version was not without some openly political comment.
>>
>
> Here we disagree and this illustrate's the problem what objective
> atandard do we use? The church has had only one objective standard
> since both popes and councils have been wrong and that is the Bible.
This sort of leaves you claiming that the Church is not the Church and that
the "True Church (TM)" is some alleged secret society that we have no real
record of until late medieval times. And the Bible is, as this thread
testifies, anything BUT "objective," since there have been versions of it
since the very earliest times (as the fact that the DSS sometimes support
the LXX, sometimes the Masoretes, and sometimes neither!
> We stlll have a problem what text is the correct one so we go
> back to what this debate is about. I nominate the TR and in English
> the translation done under the 47 pious scholars who all
> signed the 39 Articles.
And I'm not a bibliolater, so I will use any text that helps me understand.
>> I wonder what popular protestant reaction would be in the USA if I
>> was to publish a translation of the Bible laced with comments on the
>> evils of the Republican Party? (And there is no shortage of those to
>> mention).
> As a prolife Democrat(yes, we do exist), those feed the poor
> verses would be a good place to start. Are THEY political?
I hear you! What a lot of people in this day have forgotten is that the
political left in Canada and the USA in the early part of this century was
riddled with Baptists--both lay and clergy!
Tell this to Luther (and those who follow his traditions). Then explain it
to Calvin. I would not have so much against Luther if he had simply
renounced his allegiance to Rome and gone to Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch or Jerusalem (or even Moscow) for a bishop. But he didn't.
Instead he broke the Church, changed doctrine and redacted scripture to
make it stick.
> The point is who is to be the standard you, me, or the correct
> text of the Bible?
We first need to have the Church--so we can know what is and what is not
"Bible."
>> >> For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me,
>> >> is the defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well
>> >> as the prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
>>
>> > It is as long as they don't find in a carbage dump in Egypt a
>> > corrupt copy of Matthew without that verse. Oh! yes, they did find
>> > a Coptic version of the "gospel of Thomas" which the "Jesus
>> > Seminar" claims is the "true gospel." Dave the issue won't go away
>> > as John Wesley said were is the Book that gives me the Word of
>> > Life, do we have that Book in our hands or do we need to ask
>> > modern day gnostics for our salvation. Are you willing to dialog
>> > on the issue? You seem to be spending a lot of time saying the
>> > issue is meaningless!
>>
>> If you need a book, then you do not have God. And any book that
>> gives you God is good enough. The trouble with all this
>> version-beating is that it is mostly a bunch of old men who never had
>> a REAL spiritual experience in their lives quibbling about which
>> words go where in a book they don't understand and don't want to.
> Am I to believe my experiences when I was in Eastern Religions
> or my conversion experience of Jesus Christ of the Bible. Dave
You tell me. Or maybe you are meant to synthesize them.
> you must remember the Holy Ghost always comes with the Word to
> the glory of God the Father, we believe in one God not three, don't
> divide the Trinity.
What makes you think I would do that.
> Again Dave we must have an objective standard and I noninate the
> TR and in English the translation done unger the 47 scholars of
> Blessed memory. Let the dialog begin and God bless!
In other words, you make an arbitrary decision based on your own comfort
rather than any continuous tradition from the apostles. Not only that,
what about the 1611 "Apocrypha?" Do you consider them part of canon or
not? If not, why not? Whose authority do you use for deciding canon?
Those 47 scholars took the word of the 4th century leaders of the Church.
But they hedged their bets with the followers of Luther by separating out
the stuff he didn't want you to read and putting it in a separate section.
Jim Sheffield
> >> I wonder what popular protestant reaction would be in the USA if I
> >> was to publish a translation of the Bible laced with comments on the
> >> evils of the Republican Party? (And there is no shortage of those to
> >> mention).
>
> > As a prolife Democrat(yes, we do exist), those feed the poor
> > verses would be a good place to start. Are THEY political?
>
> I hear you! What a lot of people in this day have forgotten is that the
> political left in Canada and the USA in the early part of this century was
> riddled with Baptists--both lay and clergy!
>
Episcopalians.
Being "for the testimony"(i.e.Latin protestant)is not rebellion.
> > The point is who is to be the standard you, me, or the correct
> > text of the Bible?
>
> We first need to have the Church--so we can know what is and what is not
> "Bible."
>
Like the U.S. we need a constitution and the Church's Constitution
is the Bible. FYI no ecumenucal council decided what books were
to be in the Bible and the Aramaic Peshitta doesn't contain Revelation,
Jude, II Peter, II + III John thus disproving your thesis.
> >> >> For example the latter part of Matthew's gospel. Which, for me,
> >> >> is the defining text for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as well
> >> >> as the prototype liturgy for the sacrament of Baptism).
>
> >> > It is as long as they don't find in a carbage dump in Egypt a
> >> > corrupt copy of Matthew without that verse. Oh! yes, they did find
> >> > a Coptic version of the "gospel of Thomas" which the "Jesus
> >> > Seminar" claims is the "true gospel." Dave the issue won't go away
> >> > as John Wesley said were is the Book that gives me the Word of
> >> > Life, do we have that Book in our hands or do we need to ask
> >> > modern day gnostics for our salvation. Are you willing to dialog
> >> > on the issue? You seem to be spending a lot of time saying the
> >> > issue is meaningless!
> >>
> >> If you need a book, then you do not have God. And any book that
> >> gives you God is good enough. The trouble with all this
> >> version-beating is that it is mostly a bunch of old men who never had
> >> a REAL spiritual experience in their lives quibbling about which
> >> words go where in a book they don't understand and don't want to.
>
> > Am I to believe my experiences when I was in Eastern Religions
> > or my conversion experience of Jesus Christ of the Bible. Dave
>
> You tell me. Or maybe you are meant to synthesize them.
>
Scripture tells me my revelation of Jesus Christ is correct.
> > you must remember the Holy Ghost always comes with the Word to
> > the glory of God the Father, we believe in one God not three, don't
> > divide the Trinity.
>
> What makes you think I would do that.
>
It is implied in your theology that downgrades the Word.
> > Again Dave we must have an objective standard and I noninate the
> > TR and in English the translation done unger the 47 scholars of
> > Blessed memory. Let the dialog begin and God bless!
>
> In other words, you make an arbitrary decision based on your own comfort
> rather than any continuous tradition from the apostles. Not only that,
> what about the 1611 "Apocrypha?" Do you consider them part of canon or
> not? If not, why not? Whose authority do you use for deciding canon?
>
Article vi says the commonly received texts are to be considered
canon, the Apocrypha was never used to prove doctrine until the
heretical council of Trent in 1545.
> Those 47 scholars took the word of the 4th century leaders of the Church.
> But they hedged their bets with the followers of Luther by separating out
> the stuff he didn't want you to read and putting it in a separate section.
No it was based on the Church Universal position that it was to
be used for edification not doctrine, just ask your buddy Jerome.
Now, back to the issue you are avoiding what is the TR, it is based
on Apostolic Texts from the Greek Churches and some Apostolic
Western Readings, I John 5:7 being the most famous or infamous.
Dave Oldridge
> Dave Oldridge <dold...@LEAVETHISOUThfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Xns922FF061B9F0A...@142.77.1.194>...
>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com (Jim Sheffield) wrote in
>> news:94210c86.02061...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
>> And I'm not a bibliolater, so I will use any text that helps me
>> understand.
>>
> The correct text might help you understand the best.
That is the office of the Holy Spirit.
[snip]
> While some of my best friends are Baptists, don't forget
> Episcopalians.
Since I still largely consider their orders and sacraments valid, I'd be
unlikely to do so (though some of their latter-day practices are raising
eyebrows in more traditional quarters).
[snip]
> Being "for the testimony"(i.e.Latin protestant)is not rebellion.
{huh?]
>> > The point is who is to be the standard you, me, or the correct
>> > text of the Bible?
>>
>> We first need to have the Church--so we can know what is and what is
>> not "Bible."
>>
> Like the U.S. we need a constitution and the Church's Constitution
> is the Bible. FYI no ecumenucal council decided what books were
> to be in the Bible and the Aramaic Peshitta doesn't contain
> Revelation, Jude, II Peter, II + III John thus disproving your
> thesis.
Wrong. The Church's constitution is Jesus mandate to the apostles.
Is it your contention that these works are not scripture?
[snip]
> It is implied in your theology that downgrades the Word.
It is bibliolatry that downgrades the Word.
>> > Again Dave we must have an objective standard and I noninate the
>> > TR and in English the translation done unger the 47 scholars of
>> > Blessed memory. Let the dialog begin and God bless!
>>
>> In other words, you make an arbitrary decision based on your own
>> comfort rather than any continuous tradition from the apostles. Not
>> only that, what about the 1611 "Apocrypha?" Do you consider them
>> part of canon or not? If not, why not? Whose authority do you use
>> for deciding canon?
> Article vi says the commonly received texts are to be considered
> canon, the Apocrypha was never used to prove doctrine until the
> heretical council of Trent in 1545.
Nonsense!
>> Those 47 scholars took the word of the 4th century leaders of the
>> Church. But they hedged their bets with the followers of Luther by
>> separating out the stuff he didn't want you to read and putting it in
>> a separate section.
> No it was based on the Church Universal position that it was to
> be used for edification not doctrine, just ask your buddy Jerome.
Whatever. What Luther did not want you to know is that pre-Christian
Jewish believers prayed for their dead.
> Now, back to the issue you are avoiding what is the TR, it is based
> on Apostolic Texts from the Greek Churches and some Apostolic
> Western Readings, I John 5:7 being the most famous or infamous.
> God bless!
More latter-day mythology. And the trouble with this is that it is being
made a causus belli in the Church to the point of actual heresy.
Askjo
The correct text, that God purely preserved for us, will show you to
understand obviously what the God-speaking, where no contradiction can
affect any doctrines, will tell you. The correct text as the preservation
of the Holy Scripture, that God perfectly provided us, teaches us to fear
thee Lord Jesus Christ. The incorrect text can lead us to play with the LAX
Christian practices, to confuse our understanding and to destroy our true
testimony.
Askjo
Dave Oldridge
news:bHOQ8.89472$zh2.19...@twister.neo.rr.com:
>> The correct text might help you understand the best.
>
> The correct text, that God purely preserved for us, will show you to
> understand obviously what the God-speaking, where no contradiction can
> affect any doctrines, will tell you. The correct text as the
> preservation of the Holy Scripture, that God perfectly provided us,
> teaches us to fear thee Lord Jesus Christ. The incorrect text can
> lead us to play with the LAX Christian practices, to confuse our
> understanding and to destroy our true testimony.
And that would be the New Jerusalem version? The Douay-Rheims? The NIV?
Or just your precious King James version? The LXX was translated by
more elders and was held by some, even in New Testament times, to have been
inspired in translation.
And yes, becoming involved in version wars instead of doing what it says
can lead to very lax practices, like warring over versions instead of
preaching the good news that the Word of God was incarnate of the Virgin
Mary and was crucified for us and rose on the third day.
Now, if a "version" were to contradict that, I'd call it suspicious. No,
actually, I'd call it a travesty.