- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 23 2012,10:04) Pierre I am simply asking Ed to clarify.
We are talking about God's Word here.
And I did.Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 23 2012,10:04) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 23 2012,03:46) j42 so were are we going from here
??
PierreI am simply asking Ed to clarify.
We are talking about God's Word here.2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Proverbs 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
If one dares to believe that God's Word was preserved, unaltered, unchanged, and remaining the same … the way he intended it to be delivered to us, in whichever way he chose to deliver it,
then the above scriptures declare God's Word true, and not misleading, for God cannot lie.
Hi Georgie,(Link)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 23 2012,14:14) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 22 2012,23:45) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 22 2012,13:22) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 22 2012,12:43) Thank you Mike, Terra, Ed for answering. So we all believe Gods promise to preserve His written word.
pre·serve (pr-zûrv)
v. pre·served, pre·serv·ing, pre·serves
v.tr.
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact:Anyone have a problem with the definition of preserved so far?
#2
Hi EdjAre you against the definition of preserved in #2?
Quote 2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
Hi Georgie,This definition does not apply to the use of translators,
who translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,
No this definition applies to the meaning of Preserved. In this case we are talking about the Word of God in print, delivered to us. To be used for correction, for reproof etc.Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 23 2012,18:29) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 23 2012,14:14) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 22 2012,23:45) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 22 2012,13:22) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 22 2012,12:43) Thank you Mike, Terra, Ed for answering. So we all believe Gods promise to preserve His written word.
pre·serve (pr-zûrv)
v. pre·served, pre·serv·ing, pre·serves
v.tr.
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact:Anyone have a problem with the definition of preserved so far?
#2
Hi EdjAre you against the definition of preserved in #2?
Quote 2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
Hi Georgie,This definition does not apply to the use of translators,
who translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English.God bless
Ed J
Hi Ed,
No this definition applies to the meaning of Preserved. In this case we are talking about the Word of God in print, delivered to us. To be used for correction, for reproof etc.
Hi Georgie,This definition “of preserve” does not apply to the use of trans-
lators, who translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English. …because a translation is “an alteration” and “a changed condition”.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 23 2012,18:37) This definition “of preserve” does not apply to the use of trans-
lators, who translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English. …because a translation is “an alteration” and “a changed condition”.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EdjYes, but it doesn't matter what language it is translated into, it's still God's word. It means the same in all languages.
His word is preserved for all of us in the scriptures.
You know this right?
What are you defending?
I'm confused?
If there's a matter concerning God, then we go to the scriptures, the main source. This is the reproof we use,
it's all in print, can't be changed.
This is what he gave us.
It cannot be altered, but men think, no I can improve it,
make it easier to understand for everyone,
but if God wants to give us understanding, then he gives the holy spirit. This is how he works. God is for the simple, not the highly educated, for these types are trusting in the world (man's wisdom) for their answers, and not God.Many can read Greek, Hebrew, etc etc, even you guys, who don't speak it, seem to hang on every Greek and Hebrew word, with your little programs, but don't even dare to try and understand the old english? That's too hard. So these so called learned wise men go in there correcting and modernising Gods Word, and they subtly change the meanings, and water it right down. Now suddenly theres confusion on which is actually God's word right, and if he doesn't believe my version is right, and I don't believe his version is right, then what have we got to prove God's word?
Can you see what the devil has done?Hi Georgie,
Are you familiar with the 4 variants in Greek? Which one here?
Codex Vaticanvs Codex Sinaiticvs Textus Receptus Nestle TextGod bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 24 2012,08:28) Ed, Isn't there also “Alexandrian”?
Hi Mike,Why yes there is, it is the 'Codex Sinaiticvs'.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2012,07:53) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 21 2012,19:43) Anyone have a problem with the definition of preserved so far?
Well, unless we have before us the original parchments upon which Moses, Samuel, Peter, Paul, etc wrote their letters/laws/prophesies, then I don't think we can honestly say that God's written word was “kept in perfect or unaltered condition”, or “maintained unchanged”.There have been many changes and additions through the years. And we can't even be sure that the OLDEST mss we have found are completely accurate, because we don't possess the ORIGINAL writings.
I answered “YES” to your first question, thinking that by “preserved” you meant, “still available to us today”. But since there isn't even one ancient ms that matches exactly with any other ancient ms, I know for a fact we can't say the written word survived “unaltered” or “unchanged”.
Ok Mike, let me rephrase the question for you.Do you believe that God preserved His written word TEXTUALLY?
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 23 2012,10:24) J42 If one dares to believe that God's Word was preserved, THIS WE KNOW FOR SURE ,
unaltered, THIS WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THE EXENT OF IT ,BUT THE MESSAGE REMAIN S
unchanged,;THIS IS TRUE
and remaining the same ;THE SAME TO WHAT
TO THE ORIGINAL OR TO THE OLDEST AVAILABLE MANUSCRIPS 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Proverbs 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
THOSE SCRIPTURES SHOWS THAT IT IS GODS SPIRIT THAT HIS THE ULTIMATE HOLDER OF THE SCRIPTURES UNDERSTANDING ,
THIS LEAVES US ALL IN HIS HANDS FOR THE TRUE MEANING OF IT ,AND GOD ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT UNLESS WE SEEK HIM WITH A PURE HEART ,AND PURE INTENTION ,WITH ALL OUR MIND AND SOUL IN TRUTH WE WILL NEVER COME TO THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND HIS SON ,
this is my understanding .
Hi Terra,By the oldest you mean the Alexandrian manuscripts right?
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 24 2012,08:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 24 2012,08:28) Ed, Isn't there also “Alexandrian”?
Hi Mike,Why yes there is, it is the 'Codex Sinaiticvs'.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,Yes that one was found in a trash can in a Catholic Monastery near Mt Sinai.
Did you know that?Hi Devolution; no, I didn't know that.
The reason they were not circulated is because they were corrupted text.
You agree that the “Textus Receptus” is the official Biblical text then, right? (Link)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Devolution,
I did know that the Codex Vaticanvs was found in the Vatican basement though.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Ed
Quote You agree that the “Textus Receptus” is the official Biblical text then, right? Yes i do.
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 24 2012,20:23) Ok Mike, let me rephrase the question for you. Do you believe that God preserved His written word TEXTUALLY?
Hi Devo,YES, if by “preserved”, you mean “still available to us today”. If you mean “unaltered and unchanged”, the I don't know for sure how close the oldest mss we have found are to the original words written.
I DO know that virtually every English version of the scriptures contains alterations and changes from the oldest mss we have found to date.
Textus Receptus, from Wikipedia:
The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Detractors criticize it for being based on only some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The missing text was back-translated from the Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.
He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: “But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.“
Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the “Majority Text” of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.
Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because “Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy“, even though he remained “convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John.”
Erasmus used texts from the 12th century or later, even though his own words said, “often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes'? How many “ignorant scribes” do you think “altered” the texts between the 1st and 12th centuries?
And he admittedly included the Johanine Comma of 1 John 5:7 to avoid controversy, even though he was convinced that it wasn't in the original text?
And he also “polished” the Latin text (from which he had to BACK-TRANSLATE some of the mss) declaring, “It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin.” ?
Hmmmm………….
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 24 2012,20:39) The reason they were not circulated is because they were corrupted text.
Ed,Do you have information to support the claim that the Alexandrian was a “corrupted text”?
Corrupted by whom? And when?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 26 2012,04:01) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 24 2012,20:23) Ok Mike, let me rephrase the question for you. Do you believe that God preserved His written word TEXTUALLY?
Hi Devo,YES, if by “preserved”, you mean “still available to us today”. If you mean “unaltered and unchanged”, the I don't know for sure how close the oldest mss we have found are to the original words written.
I DO know that virtually every English version of the scriptures contains alterations and changes from the oldest mss we have found to date.
Hi Mike,Why do you seem to be insinuating that older means more accurate?
The “TWO” (timeline and quality) are NOT interconnected?
did you somehow 'think' that they were?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgIf you really believe this 'LOGIC FALLACY'…
Why do you not believe the AKJV Bible is more accurate the more modern translations then? (it is definitely older)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
