KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
Johnthebaptist
New member
brandplucked
I assume you believe in the Trinity?
Why do I believe "Only Begotten God" is the correct text, simply because the earlier manuscripts have that phrase. (P66, Aleph, B, C*, P75, L, 33,)
"The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Clearly the first use of "Theos" in John 1:18 refers in the context to the Father, Who no one has beheld, and "the Only Begotten God", Jesus Christ who has declared Him. Clear reference to the Trinity.
I know you do not agree with this because you cannot wholed to the trustworthiness of the earlier text. For to do so proves the KJV is not without error.
I assume you believe in the Trinity?
Why do I believe "Only Begotten God" is the correct text, simply because the earlier manuscripts have that phrase. (P66, Aleph, B, C*, P75, L, 33,)
"The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Clearly the first use of "Theos" in John 1:18 refers in the context to the Father, Who no one has beheld, and "the Only Begotten God", Jesus Christ who has declared Him. Clear reference to the Trinity.
I know you do not agree with this because you cannot wholed to the trustworthiness of the earlier text. For to do so proves the KJV is not without error.
brandplucked
New member
John 1:18 the only begotten Son
John 1:18 the only begotten Son
John, you must have missed a few things. Your "oldest and best" manuscripts are constantly disagreeing with each other all the way through the New Testament. They are totally confused and contradictory. As Dean Burgon said (who personally examined them) It is easier to find two consecutive verses that disagree with each other, than two that agree.
You also missed the quotes by early church fathers who were quoting the KJB reading - not the Critical text. Even among those versions that follow the Critical text, hardly any two of them argee with all the others.
The vast Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, and the ancient Bible versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Armenian, Georgian, and the Old Latin all agree with the KJB reading. Even the early Catholic versions and the Revised Version and the American Standard Version agree with the KJB. The Holman Standard, which usually follows the UBS Critical text, has now gone back to the reading of Son instead of God.
Regardless of how you try to defend the perverted readings found in the nasb, esv, and rsv, you end up with TWO GODS, and this is heresy.
Yes, I am a Trinitarian, but there is only ONE God, not TWO as your nasb, esv teach. This is a bogus reading, but since you do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant word of God, I believe God has given you over to a reprobate mind as far as the Bible version issue is concerned.
Go back and re-read my post on John 1:18. See how all your modern versions contradict each other. They can't even agree among themselves. They are all false witnesses to the truth.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Will K
John 1:18 the only begotten Son
John, you must have missed a few things. Your "oldest and best" manuscripts are constantly disagreeing with each other all the way through the New Testament. They are totally confused and contradictory. As Dean Burgon said (who personally examined them) It is easier to find two consecutive verses that disagree with each other, than two that agree.
You also missed the quotes by early church fathers who were quoting the KJB reading - not the Critical text. Even among those versions that follow the Critical text, hardly any two of them argee with all the others.
The vast Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, and the ancient Bible versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Armenian, Georgian, and the Old Latin all agree with the KJB reading. Even the early Catholic versions and the Revised Version and the American Standard Version agree with the KJB. The Holman Standard, which usually follows the UBS Critical text, has now gone back to the reading of Son instead of God.
Regardless of how you try to defend the perverted readings found in the nasb, esv, and rsv, you end up with TWO GODS, and this is heresy.
Yes, I am a Trinitarian, but there is only ONE God, not TWO as your nasb, esv teach. This is a bogus reading, but since you do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant word of God, I believe God has given you over to a reprobate mind as far as the Bible version issue is concerned.
Go back and re-read my post on John 1:18. See how all your modern versions contradict each other. They can't even agree among themselves. They are all false witnesses to the truth.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Will K
robycop3
Member
Wrong again as usual, Will!
Wrong again as usual, Will!
Is Jesus not God? Did His father not declare He had "begotten " Jesus? Was Jesus not begotten as a man, and again begotten as First from the dead? AND DID HE NOT DECLARE HIMSELF GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN SON(John 3:16)???????????????
In your zeal to defend the apostate KJVO lie, you let zeal and emotion cloud your reasoning. You holler about versions not reading the same, while the different books within the same version narrating the same events don't agree. Agreement should be MUCH-GREATER within one version than it should be between versions, but the OPPOSITE is true. If you believe the different accounts of the same events as written in one version, then you have no argument against the differences between versions.
Wrong again as usual, Will!
brandplucked said:
Is Jesus not God? Did His father not declare He had "begotten " Jesus? Was Jesus not begotten as a man, and again begotten as First from the dead? AND DID HE NOT DECLARE HIMSELF GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN SON(John 3:16)???????????????
In your zeal to defend the apostate KJVO lie, you let zeal and emotion cloud your reasoning. You holler about versions not reading the same, while the different books within the same version narrating the same events don't agree. Agreement should be MUCH-GREATER within one version than it should be between versions, but the OPPOSITE is true. If you believe the different accounts of the same events as written in one version, then you have no argument against the differences between versions.
brandplucked said:
I take it the removal of the unispired catholic apocrypha and the word "Easter" don't qualify as "revisions" of the King James Bible in your book? Wasn't the King James 1611 version vastly unpopular until that catholic, unispired apocrypha was removed in a later revision?
robycop3
Member
Shamgar said:
Shamgar, the KJV became popular ONLY after the British govt. forbade the printing, sale, or distribution of any other version within their realm. Until then, the GENEVA BIBLE was the "people's choice". For one thing, the first AVs were simply too costly for the average person to afford, and another was that the Anglican Church wasn't overwhelmingly popular then.
The GB was last printed in 1644, and, as time passed, the people saw the AV wasn't so bad a version after all, and the price had fallen. But still, the largest factor in its popularity at first was that it was generally the only English-language version available.
The KJV served as the main English-language version for a long time with no problems until its English was beginning to be left behind in time...and then, the current KJVO myth was invented in 1930......
brandplucked
New member
The Inerrant Bible
The Inerrant Bible
Hi Shamgar, apparently you did not read my article about Easter before bringing this example up as a "revision". It isn't a revision. The KJB has always said Easter in Acts 12:4 and so did some previous English versions and others.
As for the typical Apocrypha argument you bring up, I will shortly post on this.
But first, I want to ask you if you believe The Bible IS the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God or not? If you have no infallible Bible (as I suspect) then you, like almost everyone else here, only have your own fallible mind as your final authority.
If you do believe the Bible IS the inerrant word of God, then please name it for us so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy.
Now for the Apocrypha thingy.
WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?
Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.
If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.
Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."
The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."
Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."
It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.
The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.
Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”
Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”
The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”
Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)
QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?
Will K
The Inerrant Bible
Shamgar said:
Hi Shamgar, apparently you did not read my article about Easter before bringing this example up as a "revision". It isn't a revision. The KJB has always said Easter in Acts 12:4 and so did some previous English versions and others.
As for the typical Apocrypha argument you bring up, I will shortly post on this.
But first, I want to ask you if you believe The Bible IS the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God or not? If you have no infallible Bible (as I suspect) then you, like almost everyone else here, only have your own fallible mind as your final authority.
If you do believe the Bible IS the inerrant word of God, then please name it for us so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy.
Now for the Apocrypha thingy.
WHY DID THE 1611 KJV INCLUDE THE APOCRYPHA?
Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611, and the German Luther, all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.
If you look at a copy of the original 1611 King James Bible, the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout. It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.
Alexander McClure, a biographer of the KJV translators, says: "...the Apocryphal books in those times were more read and accounted of than now, though by no means placed on a level with the canonical books of Scripture" (McClure, Translators Revived, p. 185). He then lists seven reasons assigned by the KJV translators for rejecting the Apocrypha as canonical.
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England clearly states that the Apocrypha have no scriptural authority. "...[the Church of England] doth not apply to them to establish any doctrine."
The Westminster Confession, which was written in England between 1643-48, only a few years after the publication of the King James Bible, says, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."
Martin Luther included a note on the Apocrypha that stated, "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with those of Holy Scripture..."
It is also important to understand that in the early King James Bibles, the Apocryphal books were placed between the Old and New Testaments rather than intermingled within the O.T. itself as is done in Catholic Bibles. In the Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible), for example, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees follow Nehemiah; the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Ecclesiastes; Baruch follows Lamentations; etc.
The Apocrypha was never considered canonical by the Church of England or the KJV translators. It was only included in the Reformation Bibles (and not only in the KJV) for historical reference, much as notes, etc. are included in modern study Bibles.
Final Authority, p. 166-167, W. P. Grady, “Now of the many issues raised against the King James Bible, none is so hypocritical as that of the Apocrypha question. A typical example of Nicolaitan desperation is the sarcastic barb of Robert L. Sumner who wrote: “It is also interesting-and perhaps you are not aware of it-that the early editions of the Authorized Version contained the Apocrypha. Horrors!”
Although it is technically correct that the first editions of the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha, the complete picture is rarely given. What Dr. Sumner conveniently failed to mention is that the translators were careful to set these spurious books apart from the inspired text by inserting them between the Testaments. And to insure that there was no misunderstanding, they listed seven reasons why the apocryphal books were to be categorically rejected as part of the inspired canon.”
The Answer Book, p. 99-100, S. C. Gipp, “Question #34: QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha? ANSWER: Yes. EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.”
Two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)
QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?
Will K
Peter A V
New member
opinion falible originals?
opinion falible originals?
Now that is misrepresetation.To say that what Peter and Paul wrote was falible is ludicrous.
For anyone.I think you are just pulling at straws here.
Maybe you think that when I say that the KJV is better than the originals is what might get you confused.
1]I can read the KJV,There are no originals.
2[
3]
etc.
Only in this type of sense is the originals unreliable.
I do like your work,and I look forward to reading your posts,even though we do not agree.
opinion falible originals?
42ndgen said:
Now that is misrepresetation.To say that what Peter and Paul wrote was falible is ludicrous.
For anyone.I think you are just pulling at straws here.
Maybe you think that when I say that the KJV is better than the originals is what might get you confused.
1]I can read the KJV,There are no originals.
2[
3]
etc.
Only in this type of sense is the originals unreliable.
I do like your work,and I look forward to reading your posts,even though we do not agree.
Peter A V
New member
Hi Logos_x,On page 24 #351,you go on about how you think you have discredited the KJV as infalible.
God's own words says his words are pure,very pure.Not a jot or tittle,right?
So what bible is to you the pur word of God.
You go on thinking that just because there are English words that are not protrayed in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that the KJV has gone awry.This is quite misleading,or maybe you did not know this,but the translators sometimes NEEDED to put words there to make English sense, of the verse in question.In fact,all translation committees do it ,and NEED to do it.
So I am one of the KJVO'ers that admitt this point FOR the other versions,when it is warranted,of course.
God's own words says his words are pure,very pure.Not a jot or tittle,right?
So what bible is to you the pur word of God.
You go on thinking that just because there are English words that are not protrayed in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that the KJV has gone awry.This is quite misleading,or maybe you did not know this,but the translators sometimes NEEDED to put words there to make English sense, of the verse in question.In fact,all translation committees do it ,and NEED to do it.
So I am one of the KJVO'ers that admitt this point FOR the other versions,when it is warranted,of course.
Peter A V
New member
Hi Logos_x,On page 24 #351,you go on about how you think you have discredited the KJV as infalible.
God's own words says his words are pure,very pure.Not a jot or tittle,right?
So what bible is to you the pure word of God.
You go on thinking that just because there are English words that are not protrayed in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that the KJV has gone awry.This is quite misleading,or maybe you did not know this,but the translators sometimes NEEDED to put words there to make English sense, of the verse in question.In fact,all translation committees do it ,and NEED to do it.
So I am one of the KJVO'ers that admitt this point FOR the other versions,when it is warranted,of course.
God's own words says his words are pure,very pure.Not a jot or tittle,right?
So what bible is to you the pure word of God.
You go on thinking that just because there are English words that are not protrayed in the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that the KJV has gone awry.This is quite misleading,or maybe you did not know this,but the translators sometimes NEEDED to put words there to make English sense, of the verse in question.In fact,all translation committees do it ,and NEED to do it.
So I am one of the KJVO'ers that admitt this point FOR the other versions,when it is warranted,of course.
Peter A V
New member
You are right,Brandplucked,about the fake argument about the archaic language of the Holy Bible.
In fact,they even chose words that were archaic to THEM,in their day,just because it gave the better sense.Plus you are right about the Modern versions blowing the smoke screen,when their own versions are left with picking 3rd,4th,5th generation synonyms that SORT of give the sense,but completely veiled.And in many places,a complete misrepresentation.
Besides,who,in their right mind would choose a Bible that has been pumped out by heretics,like Origen,and Jerome,and made socially acceptable by Eusebius?We have the verdict of history against it.Those corruptions were chucked oput of the church and within 150 years,that garbage was not used by the Bible believing church,that went about witnessing and promoting the Gospel of Christ.
It was not until Westcott and Hort,[BEHIND CLOSED DOORS}that the ressurection of these corrupted Cathlolic Jesuit Rheims texts began to infiltrate the Bible believing churches once again.
I have no choice but to stick to God's words that have been preserved throughout time,and used continuously.I'll accept God's 99% and reject the Alexandrain wannabees any day.
Imagine the gall of the supposed scholars,promoting the heretical,corrupted manuscripts that are in the vast minority both in numbers and in history,and rejecting the huge amount of true manuscripts throughout history and pure throughout.They sure have a lot of people bamboozled.
Not me.
No compromize.
Peter Fuhrman
In fact,they even chose words that were archaic to THEM,in their day,just because it gave the better sense.Plus you are right about the Modern versions blowing the smoke screen,when their own versions are left with picking 3rd,4th,5th generation synonyms that SORT of give the sense,but completely veiled.And in many places,a complete misrepresentation.
Besides,who,in their right mind would choose a Bible that has been pumped out by heretics,like Origen,and Jerome,and made socially acceptable by Eusebius?We have the verdict of history against it.Those corruptions were chucked oput of the church and within 150 years,that garbage was not used by the Bible believing church,that went about witnessing and promoting the Gospel of Christ.
It was not until Westcott and Hort,[BEHIND CLOSED DOORS}that the ressurection of these corrupted Cathlolic Jesuit Rheims texts began to infiltrate the Bible believing churches once again.
I have no choice but to stick to God's words that have been preserved throughout time,and used continuously.I'll accept God's 99% and reject the Alexandrain wannabees any day.
Imagine the gall of the supposed scholars,promoting the heretical,corrupted manuscripts that are in the vast minority both in numbers and in history,and rejecting the huge amount of true manuscripts throughout history and pure throughout.They sure have a lot of people bamboozled.
Not me.
No compromize.
Peter Fuhrman
Peter A V
New member
Great Men are not Infalible
Great Men are not Infalible
God's word proves to be pure once again.
That was a lot of research,too.
May we all dig in to God's word and study.Doesn't matter what side we are on on the Bible issue.But just dig.
Great Men are not Infalible
Thanks for that post Will,I didn't know about the By and By issue.brandplucked said:
God's word proves to be pure once again.
That was a lot of research,too.
May we all dig in to God's word and study.Doesn't matter what side we are on on the Bible issue.But just dig.
robycop3
Member
Peter A V:Maybe you think that when I say that the KJV is better than the originals is what might get you confused.
That sounds like something from another Peter...Peter RUCKMAN, whom most, including most KJVOs, dismiss as a nut.
May we all dig in to God's word and study.Doesn't matter what side we are on on the Bible issue.But just dig.
Good advice...until someone who doesn't like the version another is using, pops up & sez. "Yue's dont got no REEL BIBUL thar, Sunny!"
KJVO=A man-made myth, unprovable by its advocates...pure trash.
That sounds like something from another Peter...Peter RUCKMAN, whom most, including most KJVOs, dismiss as a nut.
May we all dig in to God's word and study.Doesn't matter what side we are on on the Bible issue.But just dig.
Good advice...until someone who doesn't like the version another is using, pops up & sez. "Yue's dont got no REEL BIBUL thar, Sunny!"
KJVO=A man-made myth, unprovable by its advocates...pure trash.
Peter A V
New member
Changes in the KJV?O No!!!
Changes in the KJV?O No!!!
Nice try there Huldrych.Will already answered this topic,showing that the modern versions are continually given to change,where the KJV stays true and reliable the whole time,exept for the few typo errors and spelling updates.
The Niv is so given to change,that they had to put out a letter that this time we will not be making any changes.But shucks,within a few days they had to recant because they did after all.
Any typo errors in the KJV where all corrected.In fact,any changes that appeared,always go back to the original.That is pretty honest work,if you ask me.
The real problem nowadays is that many of these modern Bible critics don't know what the word of God is.[Luke 4:4 etc].They also don't know what the SCRIPTURES are,for that matter.[Matt 22:29}
They would like to replace the word of God with manuscripts and corrupted manuscripts and shifting versions and their own opinions.
In their thinking,if one COPY does not match every word,and goofs up on even one spot and has to write another,that this constitutes error,
You can't justify your own sin by appealling to someone elses sin.And this is what most do.They think,"A Ha" he corrected this word,so now I can do it to whatever I FEEL LIKE.
But God doesn't alow those types of changes.That is the efforts of people that believe in no Bible on the face of this Earth.
In 1852,the American Bible Society said in reguards to the so-called 30,000 changes in the various editions[of A.V.]:"The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us UNALTERED in respect to its text"
That is because those 30,000 changes were primarilly spelling changes and typo corrections.
The Apostate Bible scolar assumes,of course,that the Bible is a book of perfect originals with no "errors of press,"printing or writing,in them,as they were "verbally inspired."
NO SUCH BOOK EVER EXISTED ON THIS EARTH![Ruckman]
The Scolarly apostate has no BIBLE.
The people that claim there are changes are trying to get you to accept the corrupted changes in their Alexandrian Minority texts.
There were type setting problems both in 1611 and 1613,plus other variations.
Just because there was a typo error here and there does not give licence to use corrupted Manuscripts and change the whole Bible and get rid of the real Bible.
When I speak of the KJV,I usually am speaking of the one I hold in my hands every day and have hid in mine heart.
Besides,the original autographs were never proved to be in one book at one time ever,and will never be proved.So proving they were "verbally inspired"is a non-issue.
BECAUSE,you are STILL left with the problem:
Do you have THE Bible?
Do you read THE Bible?
Are you a Bible believer?
The originals where never the Bible.The Alexandrians would like to trust in the Originals,for then they are not in submission to any bible.
So there was no departure of the KJV in writing from the text of 1611,But there was a RETURN to it if any signs of departure showed up in the printing press.
But the modern scholars would rather believe
Making a sinner out of Christ matt 5:22
Sometimes denying the Incarnation 1 Tim 3:16
covering up the sins of the translators 2 Cor2:17
attacking the Virgin birth Lk 2:33
and the Blood atonement Col 1:14
They would have you believe that these are genuine and honest revisions,because they were done by honest,godly,dedicated scholars who "reverenced the Scriptures" just as much,if not more that the KJV translators.Typical Alexandrians.
The KJV is so true to the Hebrew and Greek Texts,that even if you included all of the lithographical errors in any edition of the A.V.it would still be a text that is far superior to all editions of the ASV and NASV even where they have not one typographical error.
These perversions in these Alexandrian texts are purposeful,deliberate and intentional.
Variations are not errors.Should it be Jumped,leaped,or hopped?
All revisions of the KJV were nothing other than corrections of press errors where the type setter had not followed the KJV text.And these were revised BACK into the subsequent editions,until the PURE text arived in 1813,which conformed to the original intent of the 1611 translators.[Ruckman]
Changes in the KJV?O No!!!
Huldrych said:
Nice try there Huldrych.Will already answered this topic,showing that the modern versions are continually given to change,where the KJV stays true and reliable the whole time,exept for the few typo errors and spelling updates.
The Niv is so given to change,that they had to put out a letter that this time we will not be making any changes.But shucks,within a few days they had to recant because they did after all.
Any typo errors in the KJV where all corrected.In fact,any changes that appeared,always go back to the original.That is pretty honest work,if you ask me.
The real problem nowadays is that many of these modern Bible critics don't know what the word of God is.[Luke 4:4 etc].They also don't know what the SCRIPTURES are,for that matter.[Matt 22:29}
They would like to replace the word of God with manuscripts and corrupted manuscripts and shifting versions and their own opinions.
In their thinking,if one COPY does not match every word,and goofs up on even one spot and has to write another,that this constitutes error,
You can't justify your own sin by appealling to someone elses sin.And this is what most do.They think,"A Ha" he corrected this word,so now I can do it to whatever I FEEL LIKE.
But God doesn't alow those types of changes.That is the efforts of people that believe in no Bible on the face of this Earth.
In 1852,the American Bible Society said in reguards to the so-called 30,000 changes in the various editions[of A.V.]:"The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us UNALTERED in respect to its text"
That is because those 30,000 changes were primarilly spelling changes and typo corrections.
The Apostate Bible scolar assumes,of course,that the Bible is a book of perfect originals with no "errors of press,"printing or writing,in them,as they were "verbally inspired."
NO SUCH BOOK EVER EXISTED ON THIS EARTH![Ruckman]
The Scolarly apostate has no BIBLE.
The people that claim there are changes are trying to get you to accept the corrupted changes in their Alexandrian Minority texts.
There were type setting problems both in 1611 and 1613,plus other variations.
Just because there was a typo error here and there does not give licence to use corrupted Manuscripts and change the whole Bible and get rid of the real Bible.
When I speak of the KJV,I usually am speaking of the one I hold in my hands every day and have hid in mine heart.
Besides,the original autographs were never proved to be in one book at one time ever,and will never be proved.So proving they were "verbally inspired"is a non-issue.
BECAUSE,you are STILL left with the problem:
Do you have THE Bible?
Do you read THE Bible?
Are you a Bible believer?
The originals where never the Bible.The Alexandrians would like to trust in the Originals,for then they are not in submission to any bible.
So there was no departure of the KJV in writing from the text of 1611,But there was a RETURN to it if any signs of departure showed up in the printing press.
But the modern scholars would rather believe
Making a sinner out of Christ matt 5:22
Sometimes denying the Incarnation 1 Tim 3:16
covering up the sins of the translators 2 Cor2:17
attacking the Virgin birth Lk 2:33
and the Blood atonement Col 1:14
They would have you believe that these are genuine and honest revisions,because they were done by honest,godly,dedicated scholars who "reverenced the Scriptures" just as much,if not more that the KJV translators.Typical Alexandrians.
The KJV is so true to the Hebrew and Greek Texts,that even if you included all of the lithographical errors in any edition of the A.V.it would still be a text that is far superior to all editions of the ASV and NASV even where they have not one typographical error.
These perversions in these Alexandrian texts are purposeful,deliberate and intentional.
Variations are not errors.Should it be Jumped,leaped,or hopped?
All revisions of the KJV were nothing other than corrections of press errors where the type setter had not followed the KJV text.And these were revised BACK into the subsequent editions,until the PURE text arived in 1813,which conformed to the original intent of the 1611 translators.[Ruckman]
HTML:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.htmlChanges in the King James Version
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases.
§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT
The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterix "*" are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).
HTML:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.htmlPeter A V
New member
Erasmus only had 6?
Erasmus only had 6?
Typical parroting going on here.Who are you quoting here?Guaranteed this person has no Infalible Bible that he can hold in his hands,and read,study,memorize and live.
Erasmus was sent to school and started to make his living by copying manuscripts.
Young Erasmus moved to Italy to visit Libraries.There he spent his time comparing codices and finding the correct reading.
Italy had some of the best libraries around,seeing they would collect them profusely.
He had complete access to some of the very best.
Rome did all of the collecting,and Erasmus did all of the coalating.
When he was finished,the libraries were destroyed.So he had the best manuscripts around during those days.In fact,they were so good that some coveted them.
After Erasmus arrived back in a somewhat safe harbour,he was now ready to publish and print THE SCRIPTURES.
Erasmus was the first to marry the hand written manuscripts with the PRINTING PRESS.
Erasmus continued combing Europe and England for all of the manuscripts he could find.
He ended up with so much that he had two aids to help him carry them all.And he had plenty of time to arrange them.
Froude wrote
He was known to be preparing an edition of the [Greek New Testament with a fresh translation[Latin].He had been at work over the Greek MSS.for MANY YEARS.
Life and Letters pg 93
Even Erasmus himself mentioned at one time of his toiling over the Greek manuscripts now for two years.
All through his childhood and researching the various libraries all over Europe and England,he had amassed some 40 YEARS .He worked a dozen years on the text itself.
This sure slaps the Bible critics in the face that try to make out like Erasmus did it all hurrriedly,"in great haste."
It is a fib to say that Erasmus had a puny collection of Greek manuscripts.Why ,he was THE authority in the Greek.Everyone wanted him.
In fact,Erasmus' own manuscript collection was so large and valuable,it was covetously seized by costoms when he left England to go to the Continent to finalize the Greek New Testament in 1514.He protested saying that "they had stolen the labours of his life."
The manuscripts were returned in a few days.
But the seminaries will lie to your face,to make their $$$$$.
Erasmus matched the 99% majority Received Text [those 5,200]and he wisely ignored the 1% corrupted minority Alexandrian Texts.
Sometimes Erasmus followed Jerome,only because he believed it to follow the Accurate early readings of the OLD ITALA in places.
He,like myself atribute corruption of the text to Origen.
Materials gleened from In Awe Of THY Word,Riplinger pgs 922-943
Erasmus only had 6?
Johnthebaptist said:
Typical parroting going on here.Who are you quoting here?Guaranteed this person has no Infalible Bible that he can hold in his hands,and read,study,memorize and live.
Erasmus was sent to school and started to make his living by copying manuscripts.
Young Erasmus moved to Italy to visit Libraries.There he spent his time comparing codices and finding the correct reading.
Italy had some of the best libraries around,seeing they would collect them profusely.
He had complete access to some of the very best.
Rome did all of the collecting,and Erasmus did all of the coalating.
When he was finished,the libraries were destroyed.So he had the best manuscripts around during those days.In fact,they were so good that some coveted them.
After Erasmus arrived back in a somewhat safe harbour,he was now ready to publish and print THE SCRIPTURES.
Erasmus was the first to marry the hand written manuscripts with the PRINTING PRESS.
Erasmus continued combing Europe and England for all of the manuscripts he could find.
He ended up with so much that he had two aids to help him carry them all.And he had plenty of time to arrange them.
Froude wrote
He was known to be preparing an edition of the [Greek New Testament with a fresh translation[Latin].He had been at work over the Greek MSS.for MANY YEARS.
Life and Letters pg 93
Even Erasmus himself mentioned at one time of his toiling over the Greek manuscripts now for two years.
All through his childhood and researching the various libraries all over Europe and England,he had amassed some 40 YEARS .He worked a dozen years on the text itself.
This sure slaps the Bible critics in the face that try to make out like Erasmus did it all hurrriedly,"in great haste."
It is a fib to say that Erasmus had a puny collection of Greek manuscripts.Why ,he was THE authority in the Greek.Everyone wanted him.
In fact,Erasmus' own manuscript collection was so large and valuable,it was covetously seized by costoms when he left England to go to the Continent to finalize the Greek New Testament in 1514.He protested saying that "they had stolen the labours of his life."
The manuscripts were returned in a few days.
But the seminaries will lie to your face,to make their $$$$$.
Erasmus matched the 99% majority Received Text [those 5,200]and he wisely ignored the 1% corrupted minority Alexandrian Texts.
Sometimes Erasmus followed Jerome,only because he believed it to follow the Accurate early readings of the OLD ITALA in places.
He,like myself atribute corruption of the text to Origen.
Materials gleened from In Awe Of THY Word,Riplinger pgs 922-943
Johnthebaptist
New member
Peter Av
Ignorance is Bliss! The manuscripts he used are a known fact. Yes everybody is wrong except KJV Only according to you.
Ignorance is Bliss! The manuscripts he used are a known fact. Yes everybody is wrong except KJV Only according to you.
Huldrych
New member
Peter A V said:
If you consider silence an "answer"...I gave a sample of some differences between the 1611 and the 1769. These were a little more serious than mere typos.
Look back at the list of verses I gave. You'll see that the 1769 did NOT go back to the original on those.
The problem with Onlyists is that they cannot conclusively prove that the 1611 is "the" Bible. I've been over this time and again with Onlyists. In order to prove their ideas of preservation, they have to show that the KJV is the continuation of God's preservation process. The best way to do that is to find a copy of a Bible that corresponds with the KJV 100%.
But so far, while we find Bibles that are very similar (such as those based on the Byzantine MSS--the various versions of the TR, Majority Text, etc), there are none that perfectly line up with one another.
I don't think I have ever come across an MV advocate who is always switching Bibles. Usually they find one they consider good and stick with it. And I don't think you will find too many of them who are constantly redefining the essentials of their faith.
That has happened a lot more than you might think.
That almost sounds like an Onlyist speaking.
I don't give Ruckman's "scholarship" a whole lot of consideration.
Two things to give this argument more beef:
1. You'll have to be more specific about the modern versions that do the above.
2. You'll have to prove that 1 Tim 3:16 is the only verse where the Incarnation is discussed, Lk. 2:33 is the only verse that mentions the virgin birth, and that Col 1:14 is the only verse that explains the Blood atonement. I've found the Bible to be a very redundant book, with critical items of our faith repeated several times throughout.
jth
Peter A V
New member
Camel swallower
Camel swallower
Come now.You knew what I ment.They were simply examples.Examples of purposeful corruptions.
You would learn lots,if you even read some of Dr.Ruckman's materials.
Camel swallower
Yes,I should have put sometimes infront of each one,but I thought I should leave it anyway and see if there is any camel swallowers.Huldrych said:
Come now.You knew what I ment.They were simply examples.Examples of purposeful corruptions.
You would learn lots,if you even read some of Dr.Ruckman's materials.
- Status