- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 09 2012,11:22) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 09 2012,01:31) devo Quote Matthew 15:12-14
Then came his disciples, and said unto him, “knowest now that the Pharisees were offended, and after they heard this saying”? But he answered and said, Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.what is it you think Christ refers to when he said “PLANT ” AND planted ?
Terra,Quote what is it you think Christ refers to when he said “PLANT ” AND planted ? Now expand that understanding to include why Jesus gave this statement: “But go ye and learn what that means”.
*Do you think Jesus already knew if these Pharisees would go and learn what he told them to learn?
*Or do you think the reason Jesus told them the answer before they had the chance to go and learn was because they weren't going to go and learn it at all, thus Jesus explained it to them for a witness?Besides,
*Which plants do you think are able to understand & learn what Jesus was saying anyway?When you come to that answer, you will realize you didn't need to not only quote John at me, but how quoting John, in light of this understanding, was contradictory to your whole interpretation on this matter in the first place.
devoyou did not answer my questions ,but go into a frenzy of ideas and then belittle me ,without stipulating what was my miss understanding or false believes
I want to learn but not in the dark ,you seems to like the dark right
if not light up what you mean .Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 08 2012,10:58) *Then we can carry on this subject.
Devo,I appreciate your zeal for the word of God. It's just that to me, it's a no brainer. If the older mss DON'T have certain words and phrases, and then hundreds of years after Jesus died, we start finding mss WITH those extra words, it seems to me that those extra words were added into the mss at a later time – sometimes by well-meaning scribes trying to clarify the teaching, and many times by Trinitarian biased scribes trying to give the scriptures a Trinitarian slant that wasn't in the originals.
It's not up to you or me to decide whether or not words like “to repentance” are crucial to the teaching. If they were there in the older mss, then I accept those words as part of the teaching. If they were not, then those words were not a part of the original teaching.
We can't just add our own words, or defend the actions of someone else who added their own words, just because we think the scripture is better off with those words.
I admire your knowledge of scriptures, but I reject your theory that the KJV is the one flawless translation of the scriptures, on which God personally put His seal of approval.
It is simply one of the many English translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and has flaws like all the rest.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 09 2012,12:40) Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 08 2012,10:58) *Then we can carry on this subject.
Devo,I appreciate your zeal for the word of God. It's just that to me, it's a no brainer. If the older mss DON'T have certain words and phrases, and then hundreds of years after Jesus died, we start finding mss WITH those extra words, it seems to me that those extra words were added into the mss at a later time – sometimes by well-meaning scribes trying to clarify the teaching, and many times by Trinitarian biased scribes trying to give the scriptures a Trinitarian slant that wasn't in the originals.
It's not up to you or me to decide whether or not words like “to repentance” are crucial to the teaching. If they were there in the older mss, then I accept those words as part of the teaching. If they were not, then those words were not a part of the original teaching.
We can't just add our own words, or defend the actions of someone else who added their own words, just because we think the scripture is better off with those words.
I admire your knowledge of scriptures, but I reject your theory that the KJV is the one flawless translation of the scriptures, on which God personally put His seal of approval.
It is simply one of the many English translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and has flaws like all the rest.
Hi Mike,Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
I believe you are wrong on this assumption concerning the 'Codex Sinaiticvs' and the 'Codex Vaticanvs'.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,21:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 09 2012,12:40) Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 08 2012,10:58) *Then we can carry on this subject.
Devo,I appreciate your zeal for the word of God. It's just that to me, it's a no brainer. If the older mss DON'T have certain words and phrases, and then hundreds of years after Jesus died, we start finding mss WITH those extra words, it seems to me that those extra words were added into the mss at a later time – sometimes by well-meaning scribes trying to clarify the teaching, and many times by Trinitarian biased scribes trying to give the scriptures a Trinitarian slant that wasn't in the originals.
It's not up to you or me to decide whether or not words like “to repentance” are crucial to the teaching. If they were there in the older mss, then I accept those words as part of the teaching. If they were not, then those words were not a part of the original teaching.
We can't just add our own words, or defend the actions of someone else who added their own words, just because we think the scripture is better off with those words.
I admire your knowledge of scriptures, but I reject your theory that the KJV is the one flawless translation of the scriptures, on which God personally put His seal of approval.
It is simply one of the many English translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and has flaws like all the rest.
Hi Mike,Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
I believe you are wrong on this assumption concerning the 'Codex Sinaiticvs' and the 'Codex Vaticanvs'.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edand what if that copy they have his faulty
then what are they copying at one point someone did what was wrong to do and God let it happen ,but that does not mean that the truth of God is not there, it is just more difficult to get it ,but with a little more given knowledge and guidance from Gods spirit we can find it .
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 09 2012,15:18) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,21:17)
Hi Mike,Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
I believe you are wrong on this assumption concerning the 'Codex Sinaiticvs' and the 'Codex Vaticanvs'.God
edand what if that copy they have his faulty
then what are they copying
Yes Pierre,That is EXACTLY what the problem is
with the N.I.V., N.W.T., N.A.S.B. and just
about every modern English translation; they
were all translated from the corrupt “Nestle Text”.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 08 2012,21:17) Hi Mike, Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
Ed,I'm going on the OBVIOUS assumption that if the OLDER mss did NOT have certain words and phrases, and then sometime during the course of history, these words and phrases started appearing in certain mss, it means these words and phrases were ADDED by scribes at a later time, and were NOT in the originals.
In most cases, the shorter reading is the correct reading.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,03:41) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 08 2012,21:17) Hi Mike, Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
Ed,I'm going on the OBVIOUS assumption that if the OLDER mss did NOT have certain words and phrases, and then sometime during the course of history, these words and phrases started appearing in certain mss, it means these words and phrases were ADDED by scribes at a later time, and were NOT in the originals.
In most cases, the shorter reading is the correct reading.
Great, now will you answer my question?Ed,
If certain words and phrases were ADDED during the course of history, then APPARENTLY, not all copyists were faithfully copying the copies they had.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,22:49) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 09 2012,15:18) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,21:17)
Hi Mike,Are you not going on the assumption that the copiest's are faithfully copying the copies they have?
I believe you are wrong on this assumption concerning the 'Codex Sinaiticvs' and the 'Codex Vaticanvs'.God
edand what if that copy they have his faulty
then what are they copying
Yes Pierre,That is EXACTLY what the problem is
with the N.I.V., N.W.T., N.A.S.B. and just
about every modern English translation; they
were all translated from the corrupt “Nestle Text”.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
edare the “”Nestle Text”.part of the dead sea scrolls
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:06) Ed, If certain words and phrases were ADDED during the course of history, then APPARENTLY, not all copyists were faithfully copying the copies they had.
What if they are the older ones that you claim are more accurate because they are older?Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 10 2012,04:54) ed are the “”Nestle Text”.part of the dead sea scrolls
Hi Pierre,What is this blanket statement suppose to mean?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 10 2012,11:59) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 10 2012,04:54) ed are the “”Nestle Text”.part of the dead sea scrolls
Hi Pierre,What is this blanket statement suppose to mean?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edwhat is included in the dead sea scrolls
was the “”Nestle Text”. in the scrolls or was it a different scroll
with different writings from a later date Hi Pierre,
The “Nestle Text” has nothing to do with the dead sea scrolls.
The “Nestle Text” was the blending of 'Codex Sinaiticvs' and 'Codex Vaticanvs'.
The 'Codex Sinaiticvs', 'Codex Vaticanvs', and the “Nestle Text” are currupt copies of Greek texts. (Link)
The N.W.T., the N.I.V., the N.A.S.B., and most modern versions are translated from this corrupt text known as the “Nestle Text”.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,11:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:06) Ed, If certain words and phrases were ADDED during the course of history, then APPARENTLY, not all copyists were faithfully copying the copies they had.
What if they are the older ones that you claim are more accurate because they are older?
Hmmmm………..If the words AREN'T in the older ones, and they ARE in the newer ones, then which ones had the words added to them?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,03:16) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,11:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:06) Ed, If certain words and phrases were ADDED during the course of history, then APPARENTLY, not all copyists were faithfully copying the copies they had.
What if they are the older ones that you claim are more accurate because they are older?
Hmmmm………..If the words AREN'T in the older ones, and they ARE in the newer ones, then which ones had the words added to them?
Hi Mike,Do you not believe text can be corrupted by deletion of words
as well as addition of words? (see Deut.4:2 and Deut.12:32)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,03:16) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,11:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:06) Ed, If certain words and phrases were ADDED during the course of history, then APPARENTLY, not all copyists were faithfully copying the copies they had.
What if they are the older ones that you claim are more accurate because they are older?
Hmmmm………..If the words AREN'T in the older ones, and they ARE in the newer ones, then which ones had the words added to them?
Mike,PART 1
I believe this is a sound judgment below:
Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary : “The manuscript tradition of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants.”
Even Dr. Hort is forced to admit this as Professor Hodges points out in his footnote, “This truism was long ago conceded (somewhat grudgingly) by Hort. A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each state of transmission than vice versa.”
Professor Hodges concludes, “Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.”
Any corruption to the New Testament text would obviously have to begin after the original autographs were completed, or there would be no originals to corrupt! If the originals and the first corruptions of those originals multiplied at the same rate, the correct text would always be found in the majority of MSS. Add to this the fact that the orthodox Christian Church would reject the corruptions and refuse to copy them, and we would find that the correct text would be in the vast majority, universally accepted as authentic, while the corrupt text would be represented by an elite minority.
These are exactly the circumstances which exist in the MS evidence available today! Fuller records, “Miller has shown that the Traditional Text predominated in the writings of the Church Fathers in every age from the very first.”
The Local Alexandrian text fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Universal Text was spreading true Christianity throughout Europe.
Hoskier reports this in his statement: “Those who accept the Wescott and Hort text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine.”
Mike, that's 1381 years that the Alexandrian line was rejected for!!
That's over 3/4 of Christian history!
So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the Book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational center of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no farther than southern Italy where the Roman Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians.
At this point, I believe it will be helpful to study the ruthless Roman Catholic Church to more clearly understand her part in all new translations of the Bible since 1881.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,16:55) Hi Mike, Do you not believe text can be corrupted by deletion of words
as well as addition of words? (see Deut.4:2 and Deut.12:32)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
OR – the alteration of the words altogether?Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 11 2012,23:55) Do you not believe text can be corrupted by deletion of words
as well as addition of words?
Do I believe it? Or do I not believe it? How am I supposed to answer that?Yes, I don't believe that!
Or………………
No, I don't not believe that!
Ed, I believe that texts have been corrupted by the deletion of words as well. Note the deletion (in some Bibles/mss) of “nor the Son” in Matt 24:36 and Mark 13:32.
But, once again, if the OLDER mss HAVE the words, and the newer ones DON'T have them, it's fairly obvious what happened through the course of history.
(Notice also that almost all major changes are done to give the Bible a more Trinitarian slant, ie: The addition of the extra words in 1 John 5:7, the change from “He” to “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, and the deletion of “nor the Son” in the scriptures I mentioned above.)
Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 12 2012,01:29) If the originals and the first corruptions of those originals multiplied at the same rate, the correct text would always be found in the majority of MSS.
Hmmmmm………. And yet there exist only 5 Greek mss, out of thousands, where the Johannine Comma is found in the text.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
