- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,10:27) Ed has already admitted this is a FLAW, and should not be in the translation.
Hi Mike,You are embellishing,
I merely said it was added.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgSo you don't consider those added words to be a “flaw” in that particular translation of God's written word?
How odd…………….
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,16:44) Quote (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.
Mikethe answer is yet very simple ,and it is written in the scriptures ,but again ,many do not read scriptures with a pure heart ,so their own mind fills the vision of what is written,
it seems there is more people that like to look for answers to the truth of God to other men instead of turning to God with all their heart and mind .
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2012,12:11) No, copying corrupted Greek is the flaw.
The AKJV Bible translators translated the Majority texts.So in your own words, they translated a “corrupted” Majority Text?
It doesn't really matter how the FLAW came to be in the KJV, Ed. I don't hold the translators at fault, because they simply translated a text that was already flawed. But, nevertheless, it is still a FLAW that has come to be in the KJV.
All English versions have them. The KJV is no different.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,13:00) So in your own words, they translated a “corrupted” Majority Text?
No, The majority of the Greek copies were corrupt.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,13:00) So in your own words, they translated a “corrupted” Majority Text? It doesn't really matter how the FLAW came to be in the KJV, Ed. I don't hold the translators at fault, because they simply translated a text that was already flawed. But, nevertheless, it is still a FLAW that has come to be in the KJV.
All English versions have them. The KJV is no different.
Hi Mike,So you don't blame Robert Stephanus then, right?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 29 2012,10:30) 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?
Hi MikeOk, let's look at this 1John 5:7 that seems to be troubling you.
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
It's these words THESE THREE ARE ONE that threatens non trinitarians, isn't it? Because they can't explain it, they ditch it. Rip it out of their bibles. Don't let these words threaten you.
We know from the scriptures that Christ is not God, because he is the Son of God, so it can't be that,
It can only mean one thing.
These three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are in unity (perfect harmony),
and we can't have one without the other.
The Word, is his Word (God's word) and belongs to no-other.
The Holy Ghost comes from God too, so it's all his.
We have to think spiritually on this, not physically,
God's word is spirit.These three are in heaven, and bear witness,
There are three that bear witness on the earth as well, the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three agree as one. Does it mean that spirit is water, and blood is spirit?We have the Father,who witnesses from heaven
The Word comes straight out of God's mouth, and is a witness in heaven
For the Word is God's spoken will for every generation,
in whatever form he decides to deliver it.
Joshua 24:27 And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.IT'S GOD'S WORD THAT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE – WE MUST HEAR HIS WORDS
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth
Deuteronomy 11:18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.His word is always with him.
His word is truth, not just mutterings.
When God speaks, his word acts
His word cannot lie, and once spoken, nothing can break it.
God's spoken word will be used as either a witness for us, or against us in the days of judgement (first or second)
This witness comes from heavenThe holy ghost is the spirit of truth, and the truth is also a witness.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
again;
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.Whatever the holy spirit hears, he hears it from God. Everything here is from God, it is part of him.
So Mike, many rip this 1John 5:7 out of their bibles for they cannot understand the simplicity of what God is telling us. For trinitarians, they love to use this verse, not understanding God's speech.
It's so simple. Three witnesses in heaven;
The Father
his Word (spoken) (and recorded for us)
and the Holy Ghost. (spirit of truth)
All are from God, and all have it's purpose, the same purposeIf God decides to turn his Word into flesh (which he later did) then it doesn't cancel out, it is still God's word regardless, but now his word is a living word, and sits on the right hand side of God, and has an identity now – Jesus Christ, the Word of God. Tested, tried, and found perfect. Nevertheless, still the Word of God, under God, and all for God.
So you can put this verse back into your bible, because IT BELONGS THERE
and it is GODS SPOKEN WORD
Do not remove it,
The consequences are unbearable.Revelation 22:19 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(understanding)
Do not be part-takers wit
h them, and share in their evil deeds, for if we support them (these wicked men, cunning indeed, being led by the devil who goes after the woman's seed (truth), we will most definately miss out, and have a share in the plagues that are to come to this world soon.
Those that changed God's word, are mainly dead now, so how can they receive the plagues in the grave?
it will carry on to those who supported them
The devil like to twist things around,
make the truth a lie,
and turn the lie into so called truth,
this is his biggest weapon amongst the christians,
to get in there, contaminate & divide by deception.Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,14:22) We know from the scriptures that Christ is not God,
Hi Georgie,And we also know from the scriptures that “The Word” is God; right? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike,
A Trail of Evidence, i do not endorse any of these people, i merely bring to your attention the trail that proved that this verse was used and included in scripture until the wolves got to it.
200 ADTertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 ADCyprian of Carthage, wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One” in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 ADPriscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 ADIdacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 ADAthanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 ADAurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 ADCouncil of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 ADSeveral orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in “Three Witnesses in Heaven”
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 ADCassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 ADOld Latin ms r has it
550 ADThe “Speculum” has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 ADWianburgensis referred to it
800 ADJerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s ADminiscule 635 has it
1150 ADminuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s ADminiscule 629 has it
157-1400 ADWaldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 ADms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.The Vaudois
Now the “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.
Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?
The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.
Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.
What about the “scholars” at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?
The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).
And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.
Cheers.
devo
1Pe 2:7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,’”
1Pe 2:8 and,
“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
1Pe 2:10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
1Pe 2:11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.1Pe 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
2Pe 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
2Pe 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall,
2Pe 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves
about 50AD
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2012,14:30) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,14:22) We know from the scriptures that Christ is not God,
Hi Georgie,And we also know from the scriptures that “The Word” is God; right? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi EdjYes. For the Word came out of God's mouth and no one else's.
It is HIS word, and has always been with him from the beginning.
The word obeys him, and it comes out of him, from the breath of his mouth,
and he can do whatever he likes with his word,
like turn it into flesh.
Do you understand this?Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 29 2012,12:11) Mike the answer is yet very simple ,and it is written in the scriptures ,but again ,many do not read scriptures with a pure heart ,so their own mind fills the vision of what is written,
it seems there is more people that like to look for answers to the truth of God to other men instead of turning to God with all their heart and mind .
PierreWe are telling you to stay away from men's opinions.
Men who write books about the bible,
men who start their own doctrines,
men who make merchandise out of God,
men who try to find God in universities,
and receive their degrees from the world,
these men you are trusting in yourselfQuote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,00:09)
The King James was mass distributed to the world, to the gentiles, and they found out about God and our saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ through the KJV. This is the one that started it all.
This is when God released his Word to us contained in a book, on a massive scale.
So instead we make God a liar, and preach that he chose corrupt men, and corrupt manuscripts to deliver his word to the world?
This is how he was introduced?You and others imply that God has not the power to control the very words he chose to be translated into the language & lingo he chose, English, (the soon to be dominant language of the world, even to this day)
If so, and the KJV is not the preserved Word of God,
then he must be a weak God,
with no control or authority,
no hand on it whatsoever,
and he let his word go out corrupted,
and translated by deceived inexperienced men who had no idea?
Even, if those men who translated into the KJV were deaf & dumb,
God would still have the ability to work through them,
for his strength is perfected in weakness,
and all men are weak.
Are we oblivious to God's power?
Those men who translated wouldn't of even understood the scriptures,
because understanding does not just come from reading, and studying how to translate languages, but it is given as a gift for those who diligently seek God,
therefore I am convinced God's hand was fully on the process, guiding them, and using them for their purposeThe KJV is the first version we recieved,
so if you were living in those days (1600's)
you would read the scriptures and say,
this is corrupt and not the true word of God?
What about all them back then?
were they all deceived when they recieved the word?
and now us KJ only readers are classed as a cult, or some type of weird new age bible followers?
we are of the minority nowGod says many are called, but few chosen.
Do you know what this means?You know I did not come to this site to promote the KJV, even though I fully trust that God's word is preserved in there,
and I always thought that the other versions were just ok, and that they were a little watered down, but still, the same message is being preached.
(I have verses in my head, exactly the way I read them and remember them, and I like God's unique speech, the way he chooses his words, these I remember and come to love)
and when I hear it spoken another way, from another version, it disappoints me inside, but if the other reader is used to that modern type of speech, from the newer version he choses, and the words still speak to them, then I thought that was fine.I had never delved into the other versions, and studied the history of how they came about, and was totally ignorant, even concerning the KJV's origins, so never gave it a second thought to study what the so called learn'ed are arguing over, until I saw Pierre disputing doctrine with Wakeup, and stubbornly insisting we were wrong (preaching false doctrine) and he was the one with the truth. I came to realise that the wording of his version was totally twisted, and changed the whole meaning, and understood why he would not budge, because of what his bible was telling him. Only then did it really come to my attention, that God's word was being modernised and polluted, because a simple change here and there, twists the scriptures upside down, and gives a different view point that is contrary to the plan of God, and contradicts other scriptures that support his plan.
This is how we tell which version is true and which is not.
We have to have full understanding of God's Word, not just in part, but from beginning to end, and in depth, and this comes through loving God, with a pure heart, and never ceasing to search for those precious jewels, and yearning daily to be so close to God, not for worldly gain, or to protect a church (we do not belong to any church) or for money, or for trying to outdo another, no, we labour to protect and preserve the truth and to guide brothers in the right direction, with this wonderful gift God has given us, which is available to not just us, but to all who want it.So only those who have the truth will hear God's voice, and no matter how loud I yell, or how much proof I can produce, it is only in your court to rightfully discern the word of truth, and no one can force another to do anything against their will, but everyone makes their own choice, cause it is their own walk with God.
It is not ourselves we are preaching but the truth, because we care for the truth, and realise so many here are lacking in knowledge, especially in regards to the prophesies, I think this is a shame because it is going to affect each and every one of us soon. Many may call us doomsdayers, but the truth is bitter sweet, and whether we like it or not, it will happen and we need to be prepared, and get as close to God as possible, by having as much truth in us as we can, as this is what will be needed to be resurrected. The main ingredient inside us. The spirit of truth, not the spirit of error.
So thank you Pierre,
because of you, I am now made more aware how the devil has got inside and corrupted the very words of God, so subtly, and caused division in interpretations.
Everything played out, was made manifest and brought to the light.
I do not mean this in spite.Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,23:26) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2012,14:30) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,14:22) We know from the scriptures that Christ is not God,
Hi Georgie,And we also know from the scriptures that “The Word” is God; right? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J
Hi EdjYes. For the Word came out of God's mouth and no one else's.
It is HIS word, and has always been with him from the beginning.
The word obeys him, and it comes out of him, from the breath of his mouth,
and he can do whatever he likes with his word,
like turn it into flesh.
Do you understand this?
Hi Georgie,Yes, John 1:14 speaks of Jesus' baptism, when
“The Word” was made flesh. (see 1Tm.3:16)
You do believe the HolySpirit is God, yes?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 30 2012,06:52) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,23:26) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 29 2012,14:30) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 29 2012,14:22) We know from the scriptures that Christ is not God,
Hi Georgie,And we also know from the scriptures that “The Word” is God; right? <– please answer
God bless
Ed J
Hi EdjYes. For the Word came out of God's mouth and no one else's.
It is HIS word, and has always been with him from the beginning.
The word obeys him, and it comes out of him, from the breath of his mouth,
and he can do whatever he likes with his word,
like turn it into flesh.
Do you understand this?
Hi Georgie,Yes, John 1:14 speaks of Jesus' baptism, when
“The Word” was made flesh. (see 1Tm.3:16)
You do believe the HolySpirit is God, yes?God bless
Ed J
Hi Georgie,The Word, Who really is “The Word”? (Link)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgjourney,
There is no need for you to “explain” the Johannine Comma to me, for it was never a part of bona fide scripture. I didn't bother to read your post (although I appreciate the fact you worked long and hard on it), simply because there is no reason for me to read an explanation of the late addition of words that were never in THE TEXT PART of any Greek mss until the 14th century. I don't disagree with the words anyway. Of course God, His Holy Spirit, and His Son Jesus are “one”. Jesus expressed the hope that we too, could be “one” with them. It isn't even a Trinity proof anyway. So remember that I'm not arguing against it because it “proves” the Trinity, and I don't like that fact – I'm arguing against it because it wasn't even in any Greek mss until the 14th century.
Devo, I read your information, and noticed that many of the claims are vague, and don't specifically comment on the KJV version of 1 John 5:7. For example, your source says, “Tertullian quoted the verse” in 200 AD. What does that mean? Of course there was a 1 John 5:7 in 200 AD, but did Tertullian quote the version with the extra words? If so, where can I read his quote of this verse in Apology, Against Praxeas?
Many other claims were just as vague, mentioning that this person or that person said, “It is written that the three are one”. Written where? It doesn't specifically say it was written in the scriptures.
And what about Jerome's Vulgate? Your source said, “[It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]“
Hmmmm………….. Why didn't Jerome's original Vulgate have it? He had been commissioned by Damasus I in 382 to revise the Old Latin text from the best Greek texts, so why didn't “the best Greek texts”, from which he translated, have the extra words in 5:7?
I will address some other points of your post in my next post.
Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 29 2012,05:50) 1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Hi Devo,You have listed 4 mss that your source says “has it”. There are apparently 5 other mss that “have it”, according to NETNotes:
This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note.
NINE? Those words are ONLY in NINE mss? Out of how many?
This cool web page has the answer. You can view every papyri, Unical, and Minuscule currently known to mankind. (FYI: Up until the 9th century, Greek texts were written entirely in upper case letters, referred to as Uncials. During the 9th and 10th centuries, the new lower-case hand writing of Minuscules came gradually to replace the older style. Most Greek Uncial manuscripts were recopied in this period and their parchment leaves typically scraped clean for re-use.)
I went through the page I linked, up until the 11th century, (the time when minuscule 635 was written), and counted 897 unicals and minuscules up to that point. (I didn't count the papyris). That means, in the 11th century, 1 ms had the extended version of 5:7, while 896 mss did NOT have those extra words. (And that's assuming we can trust your source – which I highly doubt. NETNotes lists a “minuscule 636” as one of the NINE mss which have those words, and I think your source might have mistakenly typed “635” instead of “636”.)
But either way, 896 to 1 is pretty big odds, Devo.
From NETNotes:
These are the mss that have the Johannine Comma:
221 2318 from the 18th century
2473 which is dated 1634
61, 88, 429, 629, 636, 918, which originate from the 16th century
Codex 221 from the 10th century (This is the earliest one, and includes the extra words in a marginal note that was added sometime after the original composition).I suppose the NETNote scholars (who btw are TRINITARIANS who would most likely LOVE to claim the Comma as authentic) didn't count Codex 221 as one of the nine, since it is clear that the extra words were added in sometime AFTER it was written.
From NETNotes:
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.If we add all the known mss from the site I linked up to the 14th century (the time when a ms first has those extra words in the actual text), we have ONE ms (Minuscule 629) versus 2585 mss that DON'T have the extra words.
Devo, WHY do you suppose that by the time a ms actually had those words in the text, there are 2585 known mss that DON'T have them?
From NETNotes:
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.So the Comma wasn't in the text of ANY known ms until the 14th century, and all together, there are NINE mss out of a total of 3054 mss listed on the page I linked. (And remember, I didn't even count the papyris. Also remember that in 4 of the 9, the words are clearly a marginal note, and NOT part of the scriptural text.)
What does this information tell you, Devo? Do you suppose that 3045 known mss were written by heretics who omitted those words? Or does it make more sense that the words were added as marginal notes in 4 mss, and scribes later added those marginal notes into the actual text in 5 mss? The latter option makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the former, don't you think?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
