You have been led to believe the older manuscripts are "more trustworthy." I believe the older texts were less valued and lesser used than more accurate texts, causing the lesser valued texts to last longer than more valued texts.
Why I support the KJV Bible
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
I see the deliberate omission of 12 verses in the Bible to be a gross violation of the translator's responsibility to include every word in the word of God in every translation.
You need to reread what he said.
Is he afraid to debate me himself? What about you? Do you believe older manuscripts must be better because they are older?
I think you need to carefully reread what Clete said, because you clearly misunderstood something.
I would like for him to challenge me on my statement so I can offer him more explanation for why I believe wheat I believe. This is a debate site, isn't it, and not an indoctrination site?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, you make a lot of claims without ever providing any actual support.
Please start a thread on "infant baptism" in the Bible.
Yes, we know.
Nobody has tried to "bully" you into "abandoning your opinions". But we are trying to get you to have opinions based on sound arguments instead of JUST your opinion.
Right Divider
Body part
Please don't make us laugh. You never debate anything. You just give your opinions.
Last edited:
This is also a lie... possibly one from ignorance, but more likely from.... SATAN.
There are many examples, and while I do not support the conclusions the author draws in the following book, the facts are well established.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bibl…
For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts w…
Every believer should read this and deal with the facts presented.
Rhema
(Why do you listen to insane liars, marke?)
The translation committee of the KJV had no clue about conflicting manuscripts.
This would mean you feel that all you need is a clueless translation.
Got it.
Rhema
So what happened to 3rd Corinthians?
But to some extent, I can agree with you. The canon of the Church of the Far East was preserved by the Apostle Thomas when he traveled as a missionary to the Persian Empire... an Empire that never suffered the corruption of the Roman Catholics.
I present to you a link to the "word of God" as preserved by the Apostle Thomas. No other text can make that claim.
TheAramaicScriptures.com
The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.
www.thearamaicscriptures.com
BTW, do you know the official language of the Persian Empire at the time of Christ?
Rhema
(I'm beginning to think you have not studied to show yourself approved.)
Please name one Greek expert.
Rhema
Oddly enough, the Byzantine texts all date from around the same time period. Why? The Eastern Orthodox Church collected and destroyed all the extant copies of the New Testament they found, in order to replace them with an "Authorized" version, authorized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, ensuring good Greek grammar.
Byzantine text-type - Wikipedia
I will not be persuaded to change my opinions by bad arguments and weak supports.
The originals are no longer with us. That means the champions of the KJV cannot prove the Byzantine texts are superior to the Alexandrian.
Last edited:
What you should realize is that the personal biases and individual theological beliefs of people who copied the Greek texts have contributed to the corruption of tainted manuscripts.
Fair enough. You say the writer of this article is lying?
Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible? by Don Stewart
Don Stewart :: Why Don’t We Possess Any of the Original Manuscripts of the Books of the Bible?
Every time I encounter anyone who has based his or her faith on the KJVO, always without fail will use the phrase "full of errors," when in fact absolutely NO ONE has ever said such a thing.
But, Marke, the FIRST printed edition of the KJV in 1611 had errors. And in subsequent printed editions over the next two decades, the KJV itself was full of errors.
Why do you wish to remain ignorant?
Rhema
But to answer your question I would recommend someone who understood the Koine Greek language to teach students the Greek language. (That's how I learned.) The KJV translators, however, HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of that dialect.
Bart Ehrman does not believe in the infallible inspiration of God's word. He offers his biased interpretations and views of God's historic opreservation of His word down therough the ages but how much value can we place on the ramblings of someone who does not believe in God's inspiration of the Bible?This is also a lie... possibly one from ignorance, but more likely from.... SATAN.
There are many examples, and while I do not support the conclusions the author draws in the following book, the facts are well established.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bibl…
For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts w…www.goodreads.com
Every believer should read this and deal with the facts presented.
Rhema
(Why do you listen to insane liars, marke?)
The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an alternate kindle_edition edition.
I have done extensive study in manuscript translation and am persuaded that textual critics have a host of bad views, flawed conclusions, and too little respect for the infallible word of God.
Third Corinthians? Sounds like something another Tischendorf could 'find' in a forgotten dustbin of a devout backwoods' Roman Catholic monastery.So what happened to 3rd Corinthians?
But to some extent, I can agree with you. The canon of the Church of the Far East was preserved by the Apostle Thomas when he traveled as a missionary to the Persian Empire... an Empire that never suffered the corruption of the Roman Catholics.
I present to you a link to the "word of God" as preserved by the Apostle Thomas. No other text can make that claim.
(Check the table of contents.)TheAramaicScriptures.com
The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.www.thearamaicscriptures.com
BTW, do you know the official language of the Persian Empire at the time of Christ?
Rhema
(I'm beginning to think you have not studied to show yourself approved.)