- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike
Quote If the 2nd century ms doesn't have the Johanine Comma, and the 12th century ms does have it, which one of the following has likely happened: A. Someone went back in time and ERASED the Comma from the 2nd century ms?
B. Some scribe later ADDED the Comma to a ms which did not contain those words originally?
There is a lot more discrepancies than just Comma's Mike.Quote Matthew 24:36 which reads in the Alexandrian text “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only”; whereas the Byzantine text omits the phrase “nor the Son”, thereby avoiding the implication that Jesus lacked full divine foreknowledge
Mike The King James words it like thisMatthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Jesus is speaking, don't forget. One would assume that he would not know either.
Quote I find your and journey's implication that “those mss are found in Egypt, therefore they have to be evil” absurd and preposterous.
Egypt is always depicted in a bad light. Physical and spiritual. You know that after Christ's death, the Truth was recorded and protected for 3 1/2 years. The devil could not tamper with it during this time. The appostles and disciples made their headquarters in Antioch, so something special was happening there. The bible keeps mention Antioch, Antioch, Antioch. These were when they were first called Christians. After the 3 1/2 years of preserving the NT, wolves came in to tamper with the truth.Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.
(this happened after Christ's death)Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Quote Egypt, almost alone, offers optimal climatic conditions favoring preservation of ancient manuscripts while, on the other hand, the papyri used in the east (Asia Minor and Greece) would not have survived due to the unfavourable climatic conditions. So, it is not surprising that if we were to find ancient Biblical manuscripts, they would come mostly from the Alexandrian geographical area and not from the Byzantine geographical area.[/color]But manuscript copies were already found from Antioch 1600 years before they found the Alexandrian manuscripts.
For some reason God did not allow us access to the originals. This is for a purpose Mike. He would allow Satan to tamper with his holy word, and the ones decieved would follow it. God set a trap and laid the bait. That is how God works for those who do not love the truth. He will let them be decieved.2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Don't take this personally Mike. We would like you, brother ,to come back to the Word of God, unpolluted, and start expounding your knowledge deeper. This subject is just the start, and a distraction for you have so much more to learn, and you should be studying & learning the prophesies because they will be fulfilled soon and will affect you too. This is just a tip of the iceberg. The great delusion is coming.
Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 28 2012,13:10) Quote I did not know that – can you provide proof
that the 'Codex Vaticanvs' was also from Alexandria?EDJ
I may not agree with these sites, but most of the ones I looked up, refers to the Codex Vaticanvs as being from Alexandria.Codex Vaticanus B
“and is usually taken as the best representative of the ancient “Alexandrian” form of the New Testament text.”http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html
“……..Hoskier noted over 3,000 points in the Gospels alone at which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the two primary Alexandrian witnesses)…”
Hi Georgie,OK, thank you!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (terraricca @ Aug. 28 2012,14:51) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 28 2012,06:36) 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.
Thanks for your honesty Mike.I however, do believe that God kept His written word preserved accurately.
We both know that the 5000+ manuscripts make up the majority text – Byzantine line from which the KJV is sourced (Antiochian line) unlike the Alexandrian line..
And this line, the Byzantine/Antiochian line, is in harmony textually from every available manuscript that has been found from the many nations they were in.However the Alexandrian line, from which all the modern translations for the past 150 years are sourced, not only disagree with the Byzantine line TEXTUALLY, but also disagree with each other TEXTUALLY.
Mike, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Alexandrian line was taught or found anywhere else besides within Egypt. Don't you think there is a reason why the early Christians REJECTED this line outright?
DevoHow do you know that it is not today here
How would you be able to distinct between the true and the false version???
What rule would you see fit to use and do your expertise recognition so that no mistake can pass your examination .???
Terra,I am no expert nor ever claimed to be one.
But God gave us a standard to go by…that He would PRESERVE His word unto ALL GENERATIONS.
Let me say that again.
unto ALL GENERATIONS.
The Alexandrian texts were ABSENT for between 1500-1800 YEARS!
Just think HOW MANY generations thus missed out?
For 3/4 of church history, these texts were ABSENT.
Maybe there was a very good reason why.And we can not say, “oh these texts were never missing from the generations, because what they say are found in the majority texts”… WHY? because these Alexandrian texts disagree not only with the majority texts, but most tellingly, with each other on a TEXTUAL level. That means the DOCTRINE is CONFLICTING.
Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 29 2012,05:44) [
devobut we have translations today that are up to date with the “dead sea scrolls “”
mikeboll64,Aug. wrote:[/quote]
Mike,Quote If the 2nd century ms doesn't have the Johanine Comma, and the 12th century ms does have it, which one of the following has likely happened: A. Someone went back in time and ERASED the Comma from the 2nd century ms?
B. Some scribe later ADDED the Comma to a ms which did not contain those words originally?
Please provide the scripture so i can comment thanks Mike.
Quote All green text is from Wikipedia:
Matthew 24:36 which reads in the Alexandrian text “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only”; whereas the Byzantine text omits the phrase “nor the Son”, thereby avoiding the implication that Jesus lacked full divine foreknowledge.So I ask you:
If the older mss had “nor the Son”, and the more recent mss omit that phrase, what has happened:A. Someone went back in time and ADDED the phrase to the older mss?
B. Scribes later OMITTED that phrase for Trinitarian reasons?
Um, Mike….it is strange you should use this as an example. The KJV scribes did their job impeccably, transcribing the mss faithfully and without private interpretations. In fact, private interpretation was IMPOSSIBLE by the rules governing all the 50 odd translators.
What they read, they translated honestly and exactly.
The method that these scribes had to go through has never been repeated since in the history of translating.
The “modern” scribes come no where close in credibility nor scrutiny nor openness than what those KJV scribes did.Here, Mike, is why i believe you gave a very flawed example:
KJV
Matthew 24:36 (Jesus speaking)
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father onlyWell Mike, this to me goes AGAINST trinity in the highest order. Why? Because when we obey Christs command to SEEK, well, we will FIND! And this was purposely recorded the way it was so when we compare the other gospels, a PICTURE will form. A very ANTI TRINITAIRIAN picture. And this was recorded thus for a very important reason, one for another time for it is another argument!
So back to your example, Firstly it should become obvious to the reader by Christs many other declarations how He purposely differentiated between Himself and His Father, thus leaving the reader in no doubt whatsoever as to just what Jesus was implying here…that ONLY His Father knew!!
This should be obvious to any seeker.
Nevertheless, let us continue with the KJV translation as we SEEK on…Mark 13:32
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father.Ahh, here comes clarity that the seeker may find.
So you see Mike, it IS in the KJV, and in the way God meant it to be.
IF the KJV translators were seeking to promote the trinity doctrine, which they were not, then it would have been totally wiped from scripture and Mark would have stayed silent all this time. It would have been just as easy to doctor Mark at the same time would it not?
That alone seriously wounds your argument.Quote I find your and journey's implication that “those mss are found in Egypt, therefore they have to be evil” absurd and preposterous.
Actually, ALL the early church flat out rejected these not just Journey & i.It is common knowledge that the 45 odd Alexandrian mss line contradicts textually with the majority texts. Thats a no brainer.
So instead, lets compare the Alexandrian line with ITSELF shall we?
Lets see how “harmonious” this Alexandrian line really is.Disagreements between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Matthew 656
Mark 567
Luke 791
John 1022
TOTAL 3036
And that's just the gospels!!!
Is this not, by Gods definition at that, a seriously flawed false witness? So you see Mike, it needs neither Journey's, nor my own implications to discredit the Alexandrian line, for it does it all on it's own.
Quote First of all:
Egypt, almost alone, offers optimal climatic conditions favoring preservation of ancient manuscripts while, on the other hand, the papyri used in the east (Asia Minor and Greece) would not have survived due to the unfavourable climatic conditions. So, it is not surprising that if we were to find ancient Biblical manuscripts, they would come mostly from the Alexandrian geographical area and not from the Byzantine geographical area.
What is better?
45 Ancient manuscripts that not only disagree with themselves textually, but also disagree with the 5000+ mss that have been present and copied since the Apostles, not only that, but have been ABSENT for 3/4 of church history thus NOT being available unto ALL GENERATIONS…
or,
5000+ copied and handed down manuscripts that textually AGREE with each other and have been available to EVERY GENERATION?MIke, i will get to the rest of your points soon.
This is turning into a big post.Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 28 2012,22:47) Devolution,Aug. wrote:[
devo
but we have translations today that are up to date with the “dead sea scrolls “”
Yes Terra, but we are speaking about the New Testament not the old testament manuscripts.Mike,
Quote Most textual critics of the New Testament favor the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs for many reasons.
Since most textual critics do NOT believe God has preserved His written Word, but, instead, consider EVERY manuscript as merely “good” likenesses, can we really be taking their authority on this matter? Not forgetting the many many critics of whom you include that do not even believe in God let alone a literal interpretation, can we trust their word also over Gods promise?
I know who i choose.
Oh, and let us not forget the many many critics who DO believe the credibility of the majority text over the Alexandrian.Quote One reason is that Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest we have found, and some of the earliest church fathers used readings found in the Alexandrian text.
By earliest “church fathers”, you mean Catholics right? Like the creed put together under Constantine? These are the “earliest readings” “we have are they? I did not think that you endorsed Catholics Mike?Quote Another is that the Alexandrian readings are adjudged more often to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types.
Actually this is flat out wrong. The Alexandrian text is well known to be a minimalist text. It is full of many omissions only found in the majority texts. BTW, the Alexandrian text disappeared around 400 AD, a mere 150 years ago it was revived. More on that later….First, some examples of the Alexandrian omissions:
Omissions of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Vaticanus omits:
a.) Everything from Genesis 1:1 to 46:28.
b.) Psalms 106-139
c.) All of First Timothy
d.) All of second Timothy
e.) All Titus
f.) All of Revelation
g.) All of Hebrews after Chapter 9:14 to the end of the book
h.) Our Lord's agony and blood like sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke 22:43-44
i.) Our Lord's prayer for his adversaries. Luke 23:34 “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
j.) Mark 16:9-20. There is a significant blank space in the manuscript where this passage would have gone, testifying for it's inclusion in the Bible.
k.) The story of the women taken in adultery John 7:53 – John 8:11″
l.) Heb 9:15 to the end of the book.
m.) 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13Vaticanus adds the Apocrypha to the OT.
Sinaiticus omits:
a.) John 5:4, 8:1-11
b.) Matthew 16:2-3
c.) Romans 16:24
d.) Mark 16:9-20 Again, there is a significant blank space where these verses should have gone.
e.) Acts 8:37
f.) 1 John 5:7Sinaiticus adds: The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the NT and the Apocrypha to the OT.
Bible Translator Says, ‘I'm In Trouble With The Lord.'
Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.
Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon's concerns apply to both.
Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.
His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today's NIV.
Logsdon finally said, “I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”
Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”
Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.
Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.
The “experts” claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!
In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, “When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.' But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?
Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?
The average man sees a little note in the margin which says ‘not in the better manuscripts' and he takes for granted they are scholars and they must know, and then he goes on. That's how easily one can be deceived.”
It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan's hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, “The deletions are absolutely frightening.”
The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.
All modern Bible translators today use, without question, the New Testament text produced by the famous scholars Hort and Westcott.
But in her book, New Age Bible Versions, author Gail Riplinger exposes the background and corrupt theology of these giants.
Many readers are surprised at the beliefs of these men, documented by their own writings. Yet modern scholars accept their work without question, just as many university professors today blindly accept evolutionary teaching, safely going along with the crowd to protect their reputations. If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God's Truth.
History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God's Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.
Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, “You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.
“Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'”
MIKE,
Are the Scriptures just the “ideas” of God, or are they the very WORDS of God?
God promises to preserve His words.
Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.You shall not add or take away, says God.
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.God cares about every one of His words.
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.God's words will never pass away.
Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.God will curse those who change His Word.
Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Mike, this doesn't sound like God inspired only the “concepts” in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them “His Words.”
The King James Bible preserves God's words because it was translated using “formal equivalence.” All other Bibles were translated using “dynamic equivalence,” in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the “idea.”
Read the above Scriptures again please Mike.
Compare them to what you declared to me earlier about God not preserving His written word because “we” do not have the original parchments!!
Now consider that statement….”original parchments”
Mike, there are NO ORIGINAL PARCHMENTS…but there are reliable and accurate copies handed down through antiquity.
Don't you think God would have known this absence of “originals” BEFORE He promised His promise?
Brother, do not be fooled by these “experts”, they are not what they seem.Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 28 2012,22:44) The Alexandrian texts were ABSENT for between 1500-1800 YEARS!
Just think HOW MANY generations thus missed out?
For 3/4 of church history, these texts were ABSENT.
Maybe there was a very good reason why.And we can not say, “oh these texts were never missing from the generations, because what they say are found in the majority texts”… WHY? because these Alexandrian texts disagree not only with the majority texts, but most tellingly, with each other on a TEXTUAL level. That means the DOCTRINE is CONFLICTING.
Hi Devolution,Good points – but they will certainly be ignored by the supporters of these corrupt texts.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (terraricca @ Aug. 27 2012,21:51) Devo How do you know that it is not today here
How would you be able to distinct between the true and the false version???
What rule would you see fit to use and do your expertise recognition so that no mistake can pass your examination .???
I would also like to know the answer to these questions, Pierre. I would like Ed, journey, and Devo to tell me how they PERSONALLY know the Alexandrian mss are “corrupt”.“Because SOME OF THEM were found in Egypt” is not a viable answer.
Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 27 2012,22:03) We would like you, brother ,to come back to the Word of God, unpolluted, and start expounding your knowledge deeper.
That is EXACTLY what I am doing by digging deeper than the KJV, journey. I'm looking at Greek mss that predate the ones the KJV translators used by up to 1000 years.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,09:46) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 27 2012,22:03) We would like you, brother ,to come back to the Word of God, unpolluted, and start expounding your knowledge deeper.
That is EXACTLY what I am doing by digging deeper than the KJV, journey. I'm looking at Greek mss that predate the ones the KJV translators used by up to 1000 years.
Hi Mike,How old a currupt manuscript is does not change the fact that it is corrupt.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Devolution @ Aug. 28 2012,06:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 28 2012,12:52) If the 2nd century ms doesn't have the Johanine Comma, and the 12th century ms does have it, which one of the following has likely happened: A. Someone went back in time and ERASED the Comma from the 2nd century ms?
B. Some scribe later ADDED the Comma to a ms which did not contain those words originally?
Please provide the scripture so i can comment thanks Mike.
Devo and journey,The “Johannine Comma” is the name for the extra words that nine late mss have in 1 John 5:7. (Devo, you listed these words as a Sinaiticus “omission” in your second post to me. How can they be an “omission” when the words were never there to start with?) Anyway, here is the “Johannine Comma” in action:
1 John 5 NIV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.1 John 5 KJV
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Surely you notice that there are more words in the KJV translation, right? Those added words are what is called the “Johannine Comma”.
I will post this following information from NETNotes, and then ask Devo, journey, and Ed the same question I've already asked twice on this thread. The NETNotes info is a large read, but I do hope you will all read every word of it:
This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note. The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
It is not a matter of heresy, guys, but of HISTORY. I keep telling you that the closer to the time of the originals we can get, the less altered the mss will be.
And here is the question I've been asking:
If the 2nd century ms doesn't have the Johanine Comma, and the 12th century ms does have it, which one of the following has likely happened:
A. Someone went back in time and ERASED the Comma from the 2nd century ms?
B. Some scribe later ADDED the Comma to a ms which did not contain those words originally?
Would all three of you answer this question DIRECTLY and HONESTLY.
peace,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,09:46) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 27 2012,22:03) We would like you, brother ,to come back to the Word of God, unpolluted, and start expounding your knowledge deeper.
That is EXACTLY what I am doing by digging deeper than the KJV, journey. I'm looking at Greek mss that predate the ones the KJV translators used by up to 1000 years.
Mike2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 28 2012,17:00) Hi Mike, How old a currupt manuscript is does not change the fact that it is corrupt.
Ed, you keep calling the Alexandrian mss “corrupt”. journey has also said this. Instead of this thread being about which experts like the Alexandrian mss, and which experts like the Majority Text mss, why don't we all just put our money where our mouth is. This thread is really about whether or not the KJV is the unadulterated word of God, preserved throughout the ages for “all generations”. So THAT is what we should be discussing. We should be investigating the differences between the KJV and more recent versions, to see which version is correct.Right now, we're dealing with the FLAWED 1 John 5:7 translation in the KJV. Ed has already admitted this is a FLAW, and should not be in the translation. As soon as Devo and journey do the same, we can move on to other such flawed renderings in the KJV. Or you guys can point out what you think is a flaw in one of the more recent versions, and we can research the verse to find out which version has it “right”.
2 Corinth 4:1 Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 Corinth 4:2 but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.2 Corinth 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2 Corinth 4:4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.2 Corinth 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake.
journey, I don't need you telling me about the truth – until you can sucessfully defend your beloved KJV in the case of 1 John 5:7.
Do that first, and THEN we'll talk about truth in translations, okay?
Ephesians 4:14Thus we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Ephesians 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Ephesians 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk as children of light.Ephesians 5:9 For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;
Ephesians 5:10 Proving what is acceptable to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Ephesians 5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Ephesians 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise; but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the spirit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
