MIKE, TERRA, ED

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 12 2012,01:29)

………….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 sounds about right.  It coincides with the years following the unscriptural Nicene Creed.

Think it out, Devo.  The “experts” have been teaching that the Son of God is the very God he is the Son of for about this same amount of time………. “over 3/4 of Christian history!”

And since these newer translations (excepting the NWT) are also made by TRINITARIAN scholars, there have to be some pretty damning reasons for them to break tradition and start using the older mss – instead of the ones with the added Trinitarian slants.

It's like you said before, Devo:  You can throw your “experts” at me, and I can throw mine at you.

 But I'll say for the record once more:  If the words AREN'T in the older mss, but then start showing up in the newer ones, it seems OBVIOUS that those words were ADDED at a later time.  The same goes for deletions, and alterations.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 12 2012,01:29)

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.”

What if John wrote 1 John with his own hand, and then the very first scribe to copy it added the extra words in 5:7? And then that first copy ended up being the source from which the next 10 copies were subsequently made? And then the next 1000 copies were made from those 10? And so on, and so on.

We would end up with thousands of mss that had those extra words that John didn't even write.

Something to think about.

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:17)

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.)

Hi Mike,

The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was.
And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.  

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,04:38)

Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was.

Actually Ed,

The reason SOME Bibles say “God was manifest in the flesh” is because a scribe altered the word “who” to make it read “god”.

In fact, mankind has in its possession a mss where this was proven to be the case.  The older ink had “who” in this verse.  And under microscope, it has been determined that a later scribe changed the “who” to “god” with one pen stroke.  It has been proven that this added pen stroke was a different kind of ink, and that it had been added sometime after the original mss was penned.

Ed, do you suppose today's Trinitarians are slowly coming closer to the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, and not God Himself?  Because, judging from verses like John 1:18 in the NIV, I'd say that is definitely NOT the case.  In fact, judging from some of the wording in the translations that jammin posts on the “Word” thread, I'd say these guys are bending over backwards in their attempts to give the scriptures a Trinitarian slant.  They're not even trying to be discreet about their blatant alterations of the Greek words.  You yourself know this is the case from the versions jammin posts, right?

And since that is the case, the question remains:  Why would these hard-core Trinitarians have “who” or “he” in their versions of 1 Tim 3:16, if there was even the SLIGHTEST chance that the correct translation was “God”?

I'm not an expert on Greek mss, Ed.  But it only seems logical that these Trinitarians would fight tooth and nail to have the “God” translation in their versions – if that translation was at all possible.

Don't you agree?

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

I don't know, I don't try to judge a persons motivation; I only go by what they say.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,04:38)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:17) 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.) Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was. And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.   Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) holycitybiblecode.org

ed

being manifested does not mean God himself came down to earth ,

I can send you my first son ,and he will represent me to you in the same manner that I would if it was me coming to meet you,

that's the way I see it ,

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 14 2012,11:54)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,04:38) Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was. And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.   Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) ed being manifested does not mean God himself came down to earth , I can send you my first son ,and he will represent me to you in the same manner that I would if it was me coming to meet you, that's the way I see it ,

Hi Pierre: glad to hear you are beginning to see a bit clearer.  

“Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” (Acts 1:8)
“So mightily grew the  Ho Logos  of God and prevailed.” (Acts 19:20)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,20:54)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 14 2012,11:54) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,04:38) Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was. And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.   Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) ed being manifested does not mean God himself came down to earth , I can send you my first son ,and he will represent me to you in the same manner that I would if it was me coming to meet you, that's the way I see it , Hi Pierre: glad to hear you are beginning to see a bit clearer.   “Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” (Acts 1:8) “So mightily grew the  Ho Logos  of God and prevailed.” (Acts 19:20) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

“Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:”
“the sword (or power) of the Spirit is “The Word” of God:” (Eph 6:17)

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,03:56)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,20:54) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 14 2012,11:54) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,04:38) Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was. And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.   Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) ed being manifested does not mean God himself came down to earth , I can send you my first son ,and he will represent me to you in the same manner that I would if it was me coming to meet you, that's the way I see it , Hi Pierre: glad to hear you are beginning to see a bit clearer.   “Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” (Acts 1:8) “So mightily grew the  Ho Logos  of God and prevailed.” (Acts 19:20) God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org “Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” “the sword (or power) of the Spirit is “The Word” of God:” (Eph 6:17)

EDJ

you still do not understand ,so tell me what POWER DID THEY RECEIVED

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 15 2012,14:43)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,03:56) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,20:54) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 14 2012,11:54) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 14 2012,04:38) Hi Mike, The reason the Scriptures say “God” was manifested in the flesh is because he was. And that is also what John 1:14 and 1John 1:1-3 are alluding to.       …sorry you believe differently.   Your brother in Christ, Jesus. Ed J (Joshua 22:34) ed being manifested does not mean God himself came down to earth , I can send you my first son ,and he will represent me to you in the same manner that I would if it was me coming to meet you, that's the way I see it , Hi Pierre: glad to hear you are beginning to see a bit clearer.   “Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” (Acts 1:8) “So mightily grew the  Ho Logos  of God and prevailed.” (Acts 19:20) God bless Ed J “Ye shall receive power, after that the HolySpirit is come upon you:” “the sword (or power) of the Spirit is “The Word” of God:” (Eph 6:17) EDJ you still do not understand ,so tell me what POWER DID THEY RECEIVED

Hi Pierre,

1. The power to understand Scripture. (1Cor.2:10)
2. The power to live a “Sin-Free” life. (1John 5:18)
3. The power to teach God's word. (1Cor.14:36)
4. The power to speak in other tongues. (Acts 2:4)
5. Some even had the power to heal. (Acts 3:6)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

edj

Quote

Hi Pierre, 1. The power to understand Scripture. (1Cor.2:10) 2. The power to live a “Sin-Free” life. (1John 5:18) 3. The power to teach God's word. (1Cor.14:36) 4. The power to speak in other tongues. (Acts 2:4) 5. Some even had the power to heal. (Acts 3:6)

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THOSE POWERS GIVEN TO THEM WERE TO SERVE OTHERS THAN THEM SELVES

AND THAT IN NO MEANS IT SHOULD BE USE IN ANY OTHER WAY .

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 16 2012,00:44)

edj Quote Hi Pierre, 1. The power to understand Scripture. (1Cor.2:10) 2. The power to live a “Sin-Free” life. (1John 5:18) 3. The power to teach God's word. (1Cor.14:36) 4. The power to speak in other tongues. (Acts 2:4) 5. Some even had the power to heal. (Acts 3:6) DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THOSE POWERS GIVEN TO THEM WERE TO SERVE OTHERS THAN THEM SELVES AND THAT IN NO MEANS IT SHOULD BE USE IN ANY OTHER WAY .

Hi Pierre,  

You mean you can't understand Scripture for you own behalf?
You mean you can't live a “Sin-Free” life for you own behalf?
You mean you can't speak in other tongues for you own behalf?
You mean you can't heal for you own behalf?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,18:15)

Hi Mike, I don't know, I don't try to judge a persons motivation; I only go by what they say.

Philippians 2:6 GOD’S WORD Translation

6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.

Without judging, I'd say it's fairly easy to understand the motivation behind this translation of Phil 2:6………. wouldn't you?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,02:32)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,18:15) Hi Mike, I don't know, I don't try to judge a persons motivation; I only go by what they say. Philippians 2:6  GOD’S WORD Translation 6     Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Without judging, I'd say it's fairly easy to understand the motivation behind this translation of Phil 2:6………. wouldn't you?

Hi Mike,

I would say that they appear to be embellishing and are
forgetting that verse 5 says we should have this same mind as well.
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (Phil 2:6)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,09:43)

I would say that they appear to be embellishing…………..

And what would be your best “educated guess” as to WHY they are embellishing? What do they hope to gain from these embellishments?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,03:04)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 15 2012,09:43) I would say that they appear to be embellishing………….. And what would be your best “educated guess” as to WHY they are embellishing?  What do they hope to gain from these embellishments?

Hi Mike,

It looks like a promotion of the standard module of trinity doctrine.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Bingo!  So we CAN detect motive after all.  

Now, don't you think a translating team who would butcher Phil 2 in such a way to promote the Trinity Doctrine would LOVE to be able to put “God was manifest in the flesh” in their translation of 1 Tim 3:16?

Why then don't they?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2012,03:32)

Bingo!  So we CAN detect motive after all.   Now, don't you think a translating team who would butcher Phil 2 in such a way to promote the Trinity Doctrine would LOVE to be able to put “God was manifest in the flesh” in their translation of 1 Tim 3:16? Why then don't they?

Hi Mike,

It appears that that was translated from 'The Nestle Text',
which was a deliberate perversion of God's sacred word.
(The Majority of the Greek texts had God in that verse)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

So these Trinitarian translators, who go out of their way to pervert the text and give it a Trinitarian slant any chance they get, also went out of their way to use the “corrupt Nestle text” – knowing that they would lose the word “God” in 1 Tim 3:16 as a result?  

Really Ed?  

I have been trying for years to reason with you, but you only want it to be the way you want it to be – often with nonsensical results.

Does it TRULY make sense to you that Trinitarian translators would use “He” instead of “God” in 1 Tim 3:16…………….. IF THERE WAS EVEN A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD MAKE AN HONEST CLAIM FOR THE “GOD” TRANSLATION?  

My God, man!  Just THINK for a minute.  Here is my imitation of YOUR understanding of the discussion between the 100+ Trinitarian translators of the NIV:

Well fellas, it seems that the MAJORITY of the mss have “God” in 1 Tim 3:16, but what do you say we exchange it for “he” anyway – because we don't want anyone to get the idea that God was manifest in the flesh!      

Trust me, Ed.  If there was ANY possible way these Trinitarians could justify having “God” in 3:16, they would have “God” in 3:16.  

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

I thought you said the Alexandrian texts were dated before the Nicene-creed.
Are you forgetting how the picture is actually put together now all of a sudden?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts