Am I saved from the Christian point of view?

[7djengo7]

Indeed, you have been sorely misled by others who are also not qualified enough to make those decisions.

Which ones?

And yes, I'm asking YOU which

You cannot call them flawed if you cannot enumerate these flaws. (So list one...)

Which "others who are also not qualified enough to make those decisions"?

And yes, I'm asking YOU which "others" you are saying @marke has "been sorely misled by".

You cannot call them "not qualified enough to make those decisions" if you cannot enumerate these "others". (So list them...)

YOU can't even read Greek

How do you usually go about trying--in internet forums--to get people to believe YOU can read Greek? I mean, after they point out how easy it is for anyone to copy/paste Greek text into his/her posts, what do you do? How do you overcome their scepticism about your claim? Do you then say, "No! It's the truth, it really is! I really can read Greek! I swear it! You've got to believe me!"

I'll give you a tip: on the internet, nobody is impressed when you say you can read Greek--especially when you do it in a context in which you're trying to lord yourself over others whom you assume cannot read Greek, and who could (at least) just as easily and plausibly pretend to be Greek scholars as you pretend to be a Greek scholar. So, go on--prove to us that you can read Greek, Professor. Let's see how you will try to do that.

 

[Rhema]

Which "others who are also not qualified enough to make those decisions"?

He has mentioned a few. His fall back is John Burgon. I'm sure you can do your own research and decide whether he is qualified or not. (He's not.) By what measure? Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Wallace ... et. al.

(So list them...)

Be my guest, You can waste your time scrolling back through his posts to see the rest of his "authorities." I'm not about to.

How do you usually go about trying--in internet forums--to get people to believe YOU can read Greek?

First, I don't. I have no need to, except when I'M presenting a position that is dependent upon the Greek text. Then I type the Greek text followed by the gloss, along with links to the Liddell Scott Lexicon (because such links are available). I prefer the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, or Kittles, but these resources are not on line, so I type the text in when necessary. Again, if necessary, I explain some of the more interesting grammatical issues of the language. I know the difference between a tense and an aspect, I know the difference between the subject and the object, I can parse a modifying clause and know that gender matching is crucial to clarity.

@marke has made his claims touting the superiority of the KJV. Technically, the ball is in his court to prove those claims. He has not. He has merely posted invective and slur, not academic reasons. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the translators of this Catholic Bible (the KJV) had no idea about the Koine Dialect of the New Testament texts, so they made some mistakes, and some purposeful mistranslations to protect cherished doctrines.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

But the KVJ was not written for the common man to read in order to make up his own mind about what the Bible says, it was published to be used as a reference tool for the Bishops and Vicars of the Anglican Church, such that they appease the Puritan threat.

What's touted as the TR was basically an appendix to the work of Erasmus whose purpose was to promote his Latin Bible as superior to, and a replacement for, the Vulgate. That @marke has chosen to ignore these fact, so be it.

Do you then say, "No! It's the truth, it really is! I really can read Greek! I swear it! You've got to believe me!"

Well that's a nasty little piece of invective right there, so I'll forgive you by ignoring it for the pathetic straw man that it is.

I'll give you a tip:

No thanks. I doubt it's worth it.

on the internet, nobody is impressed when you say you can read Greek

WOW... you're an EXPERT to speak for the whole of the internet?? (I am so humbled). But really, you worry about whether you impress people on the internet? That's so sad.

...just as easily and plausibly pretend to be Greek scholars as you pretend to be a Greek scholar.

Well that statement is so mewling I don't even know where to start. It's a lame comeback typically from people who actually don't know Greek, or realize they are way out of their wheelhouse. But by what measure can you conclude that I "pretend"? Or do you just have your knickers in a twist? Maybe jealousy? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In that I've never read any of your posts, I don't know. And honestly, I couldn't care less. You want make it about the person, and I've made it about the scholarship. And so if you can't read Greek, put on your big boy pants and go learn something. (Or maybe you'd like to post your CV.)

So, go on--prove to us that you can read Greek, Professor.

Can you at least rise a little bit above the level of childish?

How about you go first, and parse this phrase for me....

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα θεου δια πασης προσευχης ​

And then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Rhema

 

[marke]

Well I was going to apologize for saying that "you're not qualified enough to make that decision," and ask what you think makes you qualified, but I see from this post that you've rather proven my case. It would be waste of my breath to say that you are quite in error about the Sinaiticus manuscript and suggest that you actually do some research on your own. I'm just beginning to understand that there are some people who revel, if not glory, in their own ignorance.

People tend to believe what they want to believe. I believe what I have read about the Sinaiticus being a forgery.

https://jesus-is-lord.com/sinaiticus.htm

Codex Sinaiticus

(the following is excerpted from, Deception 45: Modern "Biblical Scholarship")

Some people don't believe that all of those "older and more accurate" Greek manuscripts floating around today are authentic documents. [Note: The emphases in the following sections ours.] When Codex Sinaiticus came out in the 1800s, Constantine Simonides, a well-known forger, claimed to have forged Codex Sinaiticus himself--

On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he [Constantine Simonides] claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was 'the one poor work of his youth'. According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex.

Constantine Simonides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides says this of Constantine Simonides--

Constantine Simonides (1820-1867), palaeographer, dealer of icons, man with extensive learning, knowledge of manuscripts, miraculous calligraphy. He surpassed his contemporaries in literary ability. According to opinion of paleographers, HE WAS THE MOST VERSATILE FORGER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

These manuscripts often seem to pop up in Roman Catholic edifices like monasteries. Where did Simonides spend his time? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides--

Simonides lived in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he acquired some of the biblical manuscripts that he later sold. He produced a lot of manuscripts ascribed to Hellenistic and early Byzantine periods. He forged a number of documents and manuscripts and CLAIMED THEY WERE THE ORIGINALS of the Gospel of Mark, as well as original manuscripts of poems of Homer. HE SOLD SOME OF THESE FORGERIES to the King of Greece. Greek scholars exposed his forgeries quickly and he left Greece and TRAVELED FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY WITH HIS FORGERIES. He visited England between 1853 and 1855 and other European countries, and his literary activity was extraordinary...Some of his works were published in Moscow, Odessa, in England...and in Germany. He also wrote many other works which were never published. From 1843 until 1856...ALL OVER EUROPE HE OFFERED FOR SALE FRAUDULENT MANUSCRIPTS PURPORTING TO BE OF ANCIENT ORIGIN. HE CREATED "A CONSIDERABLE SENSATION BY PRODUCING QUANTITIES OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS PROFESSING TO BE OF FABULOUS ANTIQUITY...

This idea of a forged manuscript is reminiscent of the infamous "Donation of Constantine."

 

[marke]

Which ones?

And yes, I'm asking YOU which "doctrinal errors" you have discovered and feel qualified to charge Westcott with, not repeating the slander and misrepresentations from other authors you may have read.

If you're qualified, you will have read Westcott's works (and I don't think you have) in order to cast such aspersions of character.

And if you're honest, you'll just admit you have only second hand information about this topic.

You make far too many bad assumptions. Years ago I read the Life and Letters of Westcott in 2 volumes in their entirety. Westcott was a false teacher who held many blasphemous views and misinterpretations of scripture. Here is a source that provides quotes from the misguided scholar, with just the first example of many listed detailing his misguided views:

https://heritagebbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Views-Complete-4a-and-b.pdf

THE DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF WESTCOTT, HORT, AND OTHERS Westcott and Hort Were From the Anglican Church of England

1. Westcott's Views: He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following: "No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

 

[marke]

So I see you are a disciple of Bullinger.

Ah well... I am not.


Buffoon misspells Buffoon.

Oh the irony.
What joy.








... and screen shot....
View attachment 6363

I agree. I don't see how it's even possible for you to be a bafoon.

 

[marke]

Like Westcott? Metzger? Wallace? Marshall? Nestle? Aland?

Darn... you guys just went and broke my irony meter.

View attachment 6364

You should scrap your holy catholic water-powered irony meter and buy one from a Bible believer.

 

[marke]

He has mentioned a few. His fall back is John Burgon. I'm sure you can do your own research and decide whether he is qualified or not. (He's not.) By what measure? Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Wallace ... et. al.

Burgon was one of the most respected scholars of his day and he encouraged Westcott to do his work on improving the English-translated Bible. But Westcott lied to Burgon and did not invite him to help with his work because, in direct contradiction to what he told Burgon, Westcott did not just revise the English, he rewrote the Greek. That is why Burgon came out with his Revised Version two years later which provided irrefutable evidence that Westcott's work was completely flawed from front to back.

 

[marke]

He has mentioned a few. His fall back is John Burgon. I'm sure you can do your own research and decide whether he is qualified or not. (He's not.) By what measure? Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Wallace ... et. al.

Amateurs slander Burgon but cannot refute Burgon. How typically unscholarly.

https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

As for the text of these two manuscripts, it is notably an inferior text (when one is able to determine the true text in the light of all the corrections). Scholar Dean Burgon writes,​

As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts in demonstrable. No amount of honest copying,-persevered in for any number of centuries, -could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, that codex Aleph [Sinaiticus], (which evidently has gone through more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B [Vaticanus], and is even more untrustworthy.18​

Why would one of the top Bible scholars of his day make such remarks of manuscripts considered the “oldest and best” by others? Burgon had personally examined these two manuscripts, and noted that their text differed greatly form that of 95% of all manuscripts. When examining the Gospels as found in Vaticanus, Burgon found 7578 deviations from the majority, with 2370 of them being serious. In the Gospels of Sinaiticus, he found 8972 deviations, with 3392 serious ones.19 He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are found ONLY in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443.20 A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.​

These two manuscript witnesses constantly disagree with the majority of the manuscript evidence, showing them to be suspect witnesses. ​

 

[marke]

He has mentioned a few. His fall back is John Burgon. I'm sure you can do your own research and decide whether he is qualified or not. (He's not.) By what measure? Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Wallace ... et. al.


Be my guest, You can waste your time scrolling back through his posts to see the rest of his "authorities." I'm not about to.


First, I don't. I have no need to, except when I'M presenting a position that is dependent upon the Greek text. Then I type the Greek text followed by the gloss, along with links to the Liddell Scott Lexicon (because such links are available). I prefer the Cambridge Greek Lexicon, or Kittles, but these resources are not on line, so I type the text in when necessary. Again, if necessary, I explain some of the more interesting grammatical issues of the language. I know the difference between a tense and an aspect, I know the difference between the subject and the object, I can parse a modifying clause and know that gender matching is crucial to clarity.

@marke has made his claims touting the superiority of the KJV. Technically, the ball is in his court to prove those claims. He has not. He has merely posted invective and slur, not academic reasons. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the translators of this Catholic Bible (the KJV) had no idea about the Koine Dialect of the New Testament texts, so they made some mistakes, and some purposeful mistranslations to protect cherished doctrines.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

But the KVJ was not written for the common man to read in order to make up his own mind about what the Bible says, it was published to be used as a reference tool for the Bishops and Vicars of the Anglican Church, such that they appease the Puritan threat.

What's touted as the TR was basically an appendix to the work of Erasmus whose purpose was to promote his Latin Bible as superior to, and a replacement for, the Vulgate. That @marke has chosen to ignore these fact, so be it.


Well that's a nasty little piece of invective right there, so I'll forgive you by ignoring it for the pathetic straw man that it is.


No thanks. I doubt it's worth it.


WOW... you're an EXPERT to speak for the whole of the internet?? (I am so humbled). But really, you worry about whether you impress people on the internet? That's so sad.


Well that statement is so mewling I don't even know where to start. It's a lame comeback typically from people who actually don't know Greek, or realize they are way out of their wheelhouse. But by what measure can you conclude that I "pretend"? Or do you just have your knickers in a twist? Maybe jealousy? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In that I've never read any of your posts, I don't know. And honestly, I couldn't care less. You want make it about the person, and I've made it about the scholarship. And so if you can't read Greek, put on your big boy pants and go learn something. (Or maybe you'd like to post your CV.)


Can you at least rise a little bit above the level of childish?

How about you go first, and parse this phrase for me....

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα θεου δια πασης προσευχης ​

And then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Rhema

What good is knowing one version of Greek while understanding very little about proper comparisons and evaluations of manuscripts?

 

[Clete]

So I see you are a disciple of Bullinger.

Umm, no. I've read some of his material and own a "Companion Bible" but no way would it be accurate to call me one of his disciples. I did not learn my doctrine from Bullinger and, in fact, I know very little about what his specific doctrine was. He was a contemporary of Calvin but was, in no way, the fountainhead of my doctrine as Calvin was of what become known as Calvinism. Not even close.

I would certainly agree with him more than I do you but that's just about as close to making a distinction without a difference as I know how to make. I'd likely agree with practically any random person I pass on the street more than I do you when it comes to doctrinal issues. I am just familiar enough with Bullinger's work to know that he was a scholar the likes of which you wouldn't approach if you lived another 10,000 years. He seemed to spend every waking hour studying the scriptures.

Ah well... I am not.

As though I needed you to tell me that!

Perhaps you should be! Bullinger is certainly one individual who knew something for real about the Greek language and actually used it for reasons other than obfuscation and showing off. Even a casual reading through half a dozen of his appendices in the companion bible would send someone to deeper depths of biblical understanding than you've achieved with your Koinon Greek.

Buffoon misspells Buffoon.

Oh the irony.
What joy.

Spoken like the hubristic jackass I knew you to be practically from the first thing I saw you post.

There are typos in nearly every one of my posts. I type my thoughts without stopping to fix typos until I'm finished then I go and clean things up. Some things get overlooked, especially if I'm rushed, which I usually am.

Typos, however, are common and easy, not only to understand but to correct. You, on the other hand, are trapped by your own pride into errors that you have no idea even exist. All your fancy Greek, hasn't prevented you from gross error for one single second and you couldn't come within a mile of touching a single point of my doctrine if your life depended on it. That makes you a buffoonish clown who would, of course, think that a typo helps his case.

Clete

 

[7djengo7]

I'll give you a tip: on the internet, nobody is impressed when you say you can read Greek

WOW... you're an EXPERT to speak for the whole of the internet?? (I am so humbled). But really, you worry about whether you impress people on the internet? That's so sad.

Well, for the whole of the internet minus one person, apparently, as it seems you are impressed by your ability to tell people on the internet that you can read Greek. I mean, do you know of anybody besides yourself whom you have impressed by saying to them on the internet that you can read Greek?

---

How do you usually go about trying--in internet forums--to get people to believe YOU can read Greek?

First, I don't. I have no need to, except when I'M presenting a position that is dependent upon the Greek text.

Wait... you have no need to have people in an internet forum believing you can read Greek? But, you expect them to believe you're something of a Greek scholar, no? Yet you imagine they will somehow believe that without believing you can read Greek?

So, again, if you want people on the internet to believe you can read Greek, what do you do to try to get them to believe you can read Greek? Or, instead, do you just expect everybody to regard it as an axiom that you can read Greek? Do you just take it for granted that everyone who reads your posts believes that you can read Greek?

---

(Or maybe you'd like to post your CV.)

Like how you like to post your CP?

---

How about you go first,

Go first at what?

---

parse this phrase for me....

και την περικεφαλαιαν του σωτηριου δεξασθε και την μαχαιραν του πνευματος ο εστιν ρημα θεου δια πασης προσευχης
And then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Since you are already saying I'm wrong in my parsing of that phrase, before I have even given it, then before I give it, kindly specify for us in what detail(s) you are accusing it of being wrong, wise man.

---

But by what measure can you conclude that I "pretend"?

Have I concluded that you pretend you can read Greek? No. I assume that you pretend you can read Greek. Do you have a problem with that?

By what measure do you expect me, or any other internet forum reader, to conclude that you are not pretending when you say you can read Greek?

---

Well that statement is so mewling I don't even know where to start. It's a lame comeback typically from people who actually don't know Greek, or realize they are way out of their wheelhouse. But by what measure can you conclude that I "pretend"? Or do you just have your knickers in a twist? Maybe jealousy? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In that I've never read any of your posts, I don't know. And honestly, I couldn't care less. You want make it about the person, and I've made it about the scholarship. And so if you can't read Greek, put on your big boy pants and go learn something. (Or maybe you'd like to post your CV.)

Aha! I knew I recognized the line you just performed. I think it went with this scene:

 

[Clete]

What good is knowing one version of Greek while understanding very little about proper comparisons and evaluations of manuscripts?

I don't and never have understood why the average person would care about such considerations. It just doesn't seem to matter much at all! There's not a single point of doctrine that I've ever seen anyone establish would be substantially different, based solely on which set of manuscripts where used to translate the bible they were using.

I can prove the deity of Christ with whatever translation you hand to me. I can establish Open Theism just as easily with the NIV as I can the NKJV. I can crush any Calvinist to dust with the NASB or the King James. Sure some are superior to others and whether they are superior or not, some people may simply have a personal preference for one over another and people having discussions about what the differences are and why one is superior to another might be profitable in some situations, but, at the end of the day, so long as it isn't connected with a cult like Mormonism or the JW's, then one English bible is just about as good as any other for nearly any purpose that a normal Christian would undertake.

 

[marke]

I don't and never have understood why the average person would care about such considerations. It just doesn't seem to matter much at all! There's not a single point of doctrine that I've ever seen anyone establish would be substantially different, based solely on which set of manuscripts where used to translate the bible they were using.

I can prove the deity of Christ with whatever translation you hand to me. I can establish Open Theism just as easily with the NIV as I can the NKJV. I can crush any Calvinist to dust with the NASB or the King James. Sure some are superior to others and whether they are superior or not, some people may simply have a personal preference for one over another and people having discussions about what the differences are and why one is superior to another might be profitable in some situations, but, at the end of the day, so long as it isn't connected with a cult like Mormonism or the JW's, then one English bible is just about as good as any other for nearly any purpose that a normal Christian would undertake.

And JWs can prove Jesus is not God by their version as well.

 

[7djengo7]

And JWs can prove Jesus is not God by their version as well.

Think of it this way, @marke:

Since, as we know, Jesus is God, it's true that Jesus is God, and it's false that Jesus is not God. Only propositions that are true are/can be proved; no one has ever proved/will ever prove, for example, that NYC is in Japan, since the proposition, 'NYC is in Japan,' is false. Just the same, no one will ever prove that Jesus is not God, since the proposition, 'Jesus is not God,' is false. So, the "JWs" (the Russellites) will never prove, by any version of their "New World Translation", or by any other means, that Jesus is not God. Because they can't; they can't prove a false proposition; they can't prove a false propostion to be true.

 

[7djengo7]

I can prove the deity of Christ with whatever translation you hand to me. I can establish Open Theism just as easily with the NIV as I can the NKJV. I can crush any Calvinist to dust with the NASB or the King James. Sure some are superior to others and whether they are superior or not, some people may simply have a personal preference for one over another and people having discussions about what the differences are and why one is superior to another might be profitable in some situations, but, at the end of the day, so long as it isn't connected with a cult like Mormonism or the JW's, then one English bible is just about as good as any other for nearly any purpose that a normal Christian would undertake.

Not that I imagine it's news to you, but another fun thing that often occurs to my thinking is the fact that no one is even under any obligation to consider something like the Russellites' "New World Translation" to be a translation. Of course, the Russellites would like us to take it for granted that it is. But then, they'd also like us to stop knowing that Jesus is God, and that ain't happening!

Another thing I've often been impressed with is how some people have used the Russellites' own "Bible" against itself, and against other Watchtower Society literature and Russellite pontifications, right before the Russellites' very eyes.

 

[Clete]

And JWs can prove Jesus is not God by their version as well.

Which is precisely the reason I intentionally included the statement "so long as it isn't connected with a cult like Mormonism or the JW's". I mean that was the EXACT reason I put that in there!

Why are you so impossible to have even a single iteration of productive conversation with? There isn't any way that you're actually this obtuse! Are you intentionally trying to be impossible to talk with or what?

 

[Rhema]

Like how you like to post your CP?

What's a CP?

(And was that even a complete sentence you posted?)

Rhema
But I appreciated the humor you provided.

 

[7djengo7]

"Let's hit the road" would be an idiom, though, not a metaphor.

I see you laughed (or at least pretended to laugh) at @Clete for having said:

It's both. It is a metaphorical idiom.

What's funny to you about that?

• Do you disagree that a metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable"?
• Do you disagree that "Let's hit the road" is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable"?

---

The reason God sent His Son to die is precisely because the whole human race DOES NOT deserve to be separated from God, which is why God provided a "fix" (a path so that they would no longer be separated.)


Again, we might be separated from God, but we do not DESERVE to be, which is why God provided a way for us to not be separated.

Did God's Son DESERVE to die?

As @JudgeRightly already pointed out, in accordance with Scripture (Romans 6:23), the wages of sin is death. Do you disagree with that? And, are not wages DESERVED by the earners thereof? Did Christ DESERVE the wages of sin?

Also, since you say "we do not DESERVE to be [separated from God]", would you like to tell us that we DESERVE to NOT be separated from God?

Else, God is going against what we "deserve." (And that seems a bit backward, since God is the final arbitrator of what is deserved or not, no?)

Did Jesus Christ DESERVE to die?

---

How wonderfully erudite. I'll be sure to remind myself of that when your opinion counts.

I will remind myself of that when you start to matter.


Kindly,
Rhema

Would we be mistaken, from the appearance of these attempted barbs you threw against @Clete, to think that he had said something that offended you? Did @Clete DESERVE for you to react toward him in that manner?

 

[7djengo7]

What's a CP?

An intended prop as useless (to beggars for reverence such as yourself) in internet forums as it would be for you to say, "My CV is x, y and z. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

And was that even a complete sentence you posted?

No. Why do you ask? Is it a problem?

But I appreciated the humor you provided.

You think it's funny that when you are asked what you do to try to get people in internet forums to believe you can read Greek, you cannot say? Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're laughing your ω off.

 

[Rhema]

People tend to believe what they want to believe. I believe what I have read about the Sinaiticus being a forgery.

And that's because you want to, (not because one should).

Constantine Simonides, a well-known forger, claimed to have forged Codex Sinaiticus himself--

Well, obviously we should take the word of a "well-known forger."

Your Wiki article uses the phrase "miraculous calligraphy." ??? (Need I say more?)

Sometimes Wiki should NOT be quoted. How would one know? Nothing in the introduction carries a citation, and "miraculous calligraphy" is a phrase never used again. It's the same as the claim for him being a "palaeographer." It's an unsupported claim. I'm tempted to take the entire paragraph out, since it (itself) must obviously be a forgery. Nothing in the first two paragraphs under the heading LIFE is cited either.

Now I've read the two pages from the Sep 3rd 1862 Issue of the Guardian as cited in the Wiki article. The letter from Constantine Simonides makes no such claim that he forged the Sinaiticus. Rather, he claims that he made a COPY from a manuscript he found at Saint Catherine's Monastery, and that Tischendorf made the mistake of taking that copy. Simonides' letter actually validates the Sinaiticus manuscript.

This is just more evidence that you should truly mistrust your own abilities as a scholar. You are just not qualified to make these decisions. Here is another piece of evidence for such:

(the following is excerpted from, Deception 45: Modern "Biblical Scholarship")

Some people don't believe that all of those "older and more accurate" Greek manuscripts floating around today are authentic documents. [Note: The emphases in the following sections ours.] When Codex Sinaiticus came out in the 1800s, Constantine Simonides, a well-known forger, claimed to have forged Codex Sinaiticus himself--

You didn't finish reading.

Your own source (pg 124) states that Simonides was lying.

(The claim by Simonides) was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself - the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, - it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time which he profess to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.​

​

(Screen Shot)

Lord in heaven, man, why would you cite a source that contradicts your own position?

Or are you just trying to pull my chain?

1. Westcott's Views: He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3.

Which of the two creation stories found in Genesis do you believe he was denying? (Or might you think it to be both of them?)

You make far too many bad assumptions.

Well then you are due my apologies.

Years ago I read the Life and Letters of Westcott in 2 volumes in their entirety. Westcott was a false teacher who held many blasphemous views and misinterpretations of scripture.

A wonderful book written by his son. The copy I have is from Standford's library. Please consider this a rhetorical question, but when reading the book, what concerns presented themselves to you? I see your much expressed hatred (disdain?) of Westcott, and might possibly start a thread (if you would be so willing) to delve into from whence this hatred stems, e.g. before or after your indoctrination into the KJV only camp? As background for my curiosity, I was excommunicated from my parent's church as a young teen (what now, nearly 50 years ago) for obtaining and using a Greek Interlinear (the one I recommended above) instead of bowing down in worship to their almighty KJV. I never quite understood that mindset (though I have my suspicions), so indeed, I am curious about yours.

Rhema

You should scrap your holy catholic water-powered irony meter and buy one from a Bible believer.

I'm not Catholic, marke.

Burgon was one of the most respected scholars of his day

I'll need to address this at a later date. That said, his one core value expressed in the following quote is just absurd; the ramblings of one too pigheaded to learn anything. Such Black and White thinking is prima facie evidence of mental imbalance.

"Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you." - Burgon​

Not even Jeremiah believed the "whole of the Holy Scripture."

(Jeremiah 8:8 "Dean Burgon's Version") How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.​