MIKE, TERRA, ED

[terraricca]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,07:09)

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 . Pierre We 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 yourself

J42

you should read what I say ,it is all about the scriptures

not of men made stories .

[Devolution]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 30 2012,11:24)

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?

Tell you what Mike,

SPIRITUAL CHALLENGE TO YOU:
Enough of this empty scholarly tail chasing Mike brother.
I will refute you, you will refute me, both of us questioning the validity of the others sources, and on & on it will go.
Unfruitful.

INSTEAD….

If the KJV is so error ridden, and tampered for doctrinal reasons as you have accused it of, lets compare it to just a small sample of the Alexandrian line bibles shall we…
YOU will tell me exactly WHAT is happening and WHY it is happening and WHICH doctrine is actually being promoted by the KJV compared to the Alexandrian ones ok?

Otherwise, I WILL tell you WHAT IS happening & WHY it is happening & WHICH doctrine IS actually being promoted by the Alexandrian line.

I said to Wakeup & Journey when i first came across you, that this man Mike HAS integrity. He has error on a few points, some major but able to be overcome if he is just shown, but otherwise he has great potential and INTEGRITY.

Your overall analyses will either prove me right, or prove me foolishly premature and wrong concerning you.
Honesty/integrity WILL be revealed by your answer.
We are not fools concerning the scriptures.

(NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984).

AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

AV (King James) Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard footnote casts doubt
New World Translation OMITTED

AV (King James) Mt 19:17 Why callest thou me good?
New International“Why do you ask me about what is good?”
New American Standard “Why are you asking me about what is good?”
New World Translation “Why do you ask me about what is good?”

AV (King James) Mt 25:13Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
New InternationalYou do not know the day or the hour.
New American Standard You do not know the day nor the hour.
New World Translation You know neither the day nor the hour,

AV (King James) Mk 10:24 …how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
New International…how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
New American Standard …how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
New World Translation…how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!

AV (King James) Lk 2:33  And Joseph and his mother,
New InternationalThe child's father and mother.
New American Standard His father and mother.
New World Translationits father and mother.

AV (King James) Lk 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
New InternationalMan does not live on bread alone.
New American Standard Man shall not live on bread alone.
New World TranslationMan must not live by bread alone.

AV (King James) Lk 4:8Get thee behind me, Satan.
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World TranslationOMITTED

AV (King James) Jn 6:47 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
New InternationalHe who believes has everlasting life.
New American Standard He who believes has eternal life.
New World TranslationHe that believes has everlasting life.

AV (King James) Jn 8:9 And when they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out.
New International.those who heard began to go away.
New American Standard .when they heard it, they began to go out one by one.
New World TranslationOMITTED

AV (King James) Jn 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me.
New InternationalWe must do the work of him who sent me.
New American Standard We must work the works of Him who sent Me.
New World TranslationWe must work the works of him that sent me.

AV (King James) Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one
New InternationalI and the Father are one.
New American Standard I and the Father are one.
New World TranslationI and the Father are one.

AV (King James) Ac 2:30 that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
New International.he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
New American Standard .to seat one of his descendants upon his throne.
New World Translation .he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne.

AV (King James) Ac 8:37 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard footnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it)
New World Translation OMITTED

AV (King James) Ac 23:9 Let us not fight against God.
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World Translation OMITTED

AV (King James) Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not bear false witness.
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World Translation OMITTED

AV (King James) Co 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
New InternationalIn whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New American Standard In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New World Translation By means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.

AV (King James) 1Tim 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh.
New InternationalHe appeared in a body.
New American Standard He who was revealed in the flesh.
New World Translation He was made manifest in the flesh.

AV (King James) 1Tim 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
New International“from such withdraw thyself” is omitted
New American Standard “from such withdraw thyself” is omitted
New World Translation “from such withdraw thyself” is omitted

AV (King James) 1Pe 1:22Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.
New Internationalyou have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.
New American Standard Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls.
New World Translation Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth.

AV (King James) 1Jo 4:3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
New InternationalBut every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
New American Standard And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
New World TranslationBut every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.

AV (King James) Re 5:14 Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
New International.the elders fell down and worshipped.
New American Standard .the elders fell down and worshipped.
New World Translation.the elders fell down and worshipped.

AV (King James) Re 20:9 Fire came down from God out of heaven.
New InternationalFire came down from heaven.
New American Standard Fire came down from heaven.
New World TranslationFire came down out of heaven.

AV (King James) Re 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.
New InternationalThe nations will walk by its light.
New American Standard And the nations shall walk by its light.
New World TranslationAnd the nations will walk by means of its light.

AV (King James) Mt 1:25 firstborn son
New Internationala son
New American Standard a Son
New World Translationa son

AV (King James) Mt 8:29 Jesus, thou Son of God
New InternationalSon of God
New American Standard Son of God
New World TranslationSon of God

AV (King James) Mt 13:51 Yea, Lord
New InternationalYes
New American Standard Yes
New World TranslationYes

AV (King James) Mt 16:20 Jesus the Christ
New Internationalthe Christ
New American Standard the Christ
New World Translationthe Christ

AV (King James) Mk 9:24 Lord, I believe
New InternationalI do believe
New American Standard I do believe
New World TranslationI have faith

AV (King James) Mk 11:10 that cometh in the name of the Lord
New Internationalcoming
New American Standard coming
New World Translationcoming

AV (King James) Lk 4:41 Thou art Christ the Son of God
New InternationalYou are the Son of God
New American Standard You are the Son of God
New World TranslationYou are the Son of God

AV (King James) Lk 7:31 the Lord said
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World TranslationOMITTED

AV (King James) Lk 22:31 the Lord said
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World TranslationOMITTED

AV (King James) Lk 23:42 he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me
New InternationalJesus, remember me
New American Standard Jesus, remember me
New World TranslationJesus, remember me

AV (King James) Jn 4:42 the Christ, the Saviour
New Internationalthe Savior
New American Standard the Savior
New World Translationthe Savior

AV (King James) Jn 6:69  Christ, the Son of the Living God
New InternationalHoly One of God
New American Standard Holy One of God
New World TranslationHoly One of God

AV (King James) Jn 9:35Son of God
New InternationalSon of man
New American Standard Son of man
New World TranslationSon of man

AV (King James) Ac 16:31 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) Ro 1:16 gospel of Christ
New Internationalgospel
New American Standard gospel
New World Translationgood news

AV (King James) 1Co 15:47 the second man is the Lord from heaven
New Internationalthe second man fr
om heaven
New American Standard the second man is from heaven
New World Translationthe second man is out of heaven

AV (King James) 1Co 16:22Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord
New American Standard Lord
New World TranslationLord

AV (King James) 1Co 16:23Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard  Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) 2Co 4:6 Jesus Christ
New InternationalChrist
New American Standard Christ
New World TranslationChrist

AV (King James) 2Co 5:18 Jesus Christ
New InternationalChrist
New American Standard Christ
New World TranslationChrist

AV (King James) 2Co 11:31 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) Eph 3:9 created all things by Jesus Christ
New Internationalcreated all things
New American Standard created all things
New World Translationcreated all things

AV (King James) Eph 3:14 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalFather
New American Standard Father
New World TranslationFather

AV (King James) Co 1:2Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalOMITTED
New American Standard OMITTED
New World Translation OMITTED

AV (King James) Co 1:28 Christ Jesus
New InternationalChrist
New American Standard Christ
New World TranslationChrist

AV (King James) 1Th 2:19 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) 1Th 3:11 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Jesus our Lord
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) 1Th 3:13 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) 2Th 1:8 Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalLord Jesus
New American Standard Lord Jesus
New World TranslationLord Jesus

AV (King James) 1Ti 2:7truth in Christ
New Internationaltruth
New American Standard truth
New World Translationtruth

AV (King James) 2Ti 4:1Lord Jesus Christ
New InternationalChrist Jesus
New American Standard Christ Jesus
New World TranslationChrist Jesus

AV (King James) He 3:1Christ Jesus
New InternationalJesus
New American Standard Jesus
New World TranslationJesus

AV (King James) 1Pe 5:10 Christ Jesus
New InternationalChrist
New American Standard Christ
New World TranslationChrist

AV (King James) 1Jo 1:7Jesus Christ
New InternationalJesus
New American Standard Jesus
New World TranslationJesus

[journey42]

Quote (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 Edj Yes.  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.org

Ed,

You are distracting the topic again,
take this to another thread.

[journey42]

mikeboll64,Aug. wrote:

[/quote]
Mike

Quote

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?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?

I answered your question Mike,
was it a real question?,
or just hot air coming out of your mouth?

Quote

journey, I didn't bother to read your post (although I appreciate the fact you worked long and hard on it),

Mike, Have you never been mellow?

Mike, this is a real question,
are you sincere in matters of the truth?
if so, then what have you learn't.
tell me God's plan from beginning to end.  
I don't care if you do it in 20 pages.  
I want to know what you have been taught from your alexandrian bibles,
especially your favourite one.
You said you and Pierre are the only ones here to learn
and teach,
so teach us, share what you know about God's word?
and then sum up what the whole message of God is.
thanks.
You can make a new post.

[terraricca]

j42

Quote

SPIRITUAL CHALLENGE TO YOU: Enough of this empty scholarly tail chasing Mike brother. I will refute you, you will refute me, both of us questioning the validity of the others sources, and on & on it will go. Unfruitful.

I have check spot your quoted scriptures and see what and why ,

so my first question to you is; tell me what impact does it make with the omitted parts

and tell me why it was omitted or not in the KJV

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,04:00)

I answered your question Mike, was it a real question?, or just hot air coming out of your mouth?

journey, THIS was the question I asked you:

If the 2nd century mss don't have the Johanine Comma, and a 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 mss?

B.  Some scribe later ADDED the Comma to a ms which did not contain those words originally?

Did you answer this question in your post?  If not, please do so at this time.

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,04:00)

Mike, Have you never been mellow?

Touché!  

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,04:00)

tell me God's plan from beginning to end.   I don't care if you do it in 20 pages.

God's plan is that His children turn back to Him, so that He can heal them.

journey, I have no interest in making a 20 page post.  If there are specific questions you'd like me to answer, then all you have to do is ask them.  (Do it one at a time, please.)

Also remember that I am not your enemy here.  I have been enjoying your posts since you joined the site, and consider you better than me when it comes to a meek attitude, and more enlightened than me when it comes to spiritual things.  It is unfortunate that we are having a war now over something as silly as ONE of the hundreds of English translations of the scriptures.

(I'll expand on that thought in my post to Devo.)

peace and love,
mike

[journey42]

Pierre

Firstly, Devo posted these scriptures, not me.  But I am glad he did, for it's plain to see the discrepancies.

Quote

I have check spot your quoted scriptures and see what and why , so my first question to you is; tell me what impact does it make with the omitted parts and tell me why it was omitted or not as the KJV

 
Your Alexandrian gods omitted a vital word, so you tell me why it was omitted and what impact is has.

One would assume that anyone can spot these differences, and the impact on the completed sentence? Now do I have to spoon feed you?

AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

The word Repent is of no value to the Alexandrian mss.
Luke 13:3   I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Revelation 2:22   Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

You tell me now Pierre, what impact does the requirement REPENT means to us?  
And when you finish, please explain the meaning of the above verse in Rev 2:22
Teach us

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 30 2012,02:06)

Tell you what Mike, SPIRITUAL CHALLENGE TO YOU: Enough of this empty scholarly tail chasing Mike brother. I will refute you, you will refute me, both of us questioning the validity of the others sources, and on & on it will go. Unfruitful.

Whoa there, slow your roll brother.    I have a few questions that I NEED you to directly address.  I accept your challenge with the other scriptures you posted, but we must first finish up with 1 John 5:7 – don't you agree?

1.  Do you have any source that says the Comma is in more than 5 out of 3054 known mss?  YES or NO?  (Your source listed only 4, remember?  And we know that the words were merely a marginal note in 4 of the 9 mss that contain them – which means they are IN THE TEXT of only 5 [of 3054] known mss to date.)

2.  And if you DON'T have a source that says those words are IN THE TEXT of more than 5 (of 3054), what does it tell you?  You didn't answer this question before, so I hope you will this time:  Do you suppose that 3049 mss were written by heretics that purposely omitted those extra words, and that only 5 mss were written by God-fearing righteous men who left those words in?  YES or NO?

3.  Or does it make more sense that the words were not actually in any ms UNTIL some dude in the 14th century ADDED a marginal note into the text?  YES or NO?

4.  Even if the Comma is in Minuscule 635 in the 11th century (as your source claims), don't you find it the least bit odd that these “sacred, God-inspired words” would find their way into only 1 of the 897 known mss up until that date?  YES or NO?

Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 30 2012,02:06)

INSTEAD…. If the KJV is so error ridden, and tampered for doctrinal reasons as you have accused it of…………..

Wait a minute……….  I have never slammed the KJV.  I have pointed out ERRORS in the KJV, just as I have pointed out ERRORS in other English translations.  This all started when journey made a post to jammin, in which she tried to explain the phrase, “God was manifest in the flesh”.  Problem is, the oldest Greek mss say “HE was manifest”, not “GOD was manifest”.  And just like with 1 John 5:7, the Trinitarians bucked and railed until the issue became so important that MICROSCOPES were brought in to examine some mss.  We actually have possession of a ms where a line was added to a Greek letter, AFTER THE FACT, to change the Greek word from “he” to “God”.

So, 1 Timothy 3:16 is another scripture we should discuss after we've actually finished with 1 John 5:7.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't read the KJV simply because I don't speak in Olde English.  I don't have anything against the KJV, because ALL English translations have their flaws.  And it was not so much a case of ME singling out the KJV to slam it, as it was a case of YOU guys taking such a hard-headed stance to DEFEND it from claims of even the least little flaw.  So, you've now taken your stance, and I've taken mine.  I have hard, cold facts on my side, while you have the wishful thinking of people who seem to be in love with a particular TRANSLATION of Hebrew and Greek words………. as if this translation was God Himself or something.  

Well then, let's do this thing.  I am sincerely looking forward to going through your list of scriptures (ONE AT A TIME) to see what's what concerning the varying translations.  (Word of warning, I'm quite sure that you won't like what you find out.  I have a feeling that many of the “omissions” you've documented are going to turn out to be a case of extra words ADDED in to later mss.)

But first, we must put 5:7 to bed.  If we don't have closure on 5:7, then I will feel that it was a waste of my time to discuss it with you, which will subsequently lessen my enthusiasm to discuss the other scriptures you posted.

Devo, can you copy your list and paste it to your Word program for now, so we can then tear each scripture down one at a time when we're done with 5:7?

Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 30 2012,02:06)

I said to Wakeup & Journey when i first came across you, that this man Mike HAS integrity. He has error on a few points, some major but able to be overcome if he is just shown, but otherwise he has great potential and INTEGRITY.

Well, that's quite perceptive of you, Devo.    I picked up a Bible for the first time about 3 years ago, so I know I have MUCH to learn.  And I've had to adjust my understanding many times in the light of scriptural evidence shown to me by others here.  That's why you don't see me on the prophecy threads – for I am still on milk.  BUT………….. don't think you can tell me that if I understood the prophesies YOUR WAY, this KJV thing will all just fall into place – because the simple fact of the matter is that the KJV was translated from the best mss they had AT THAT TIME, and we now have many OLDER and BETTER ones to translate from.  In time, I'll put my two cents in about prophesies, but for now, we have hard cold facts to discuss concerning certain verses in the KJV (and other Bibles).

Let's get to it.

[Ed J]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,20:41)

Quote (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 Edj Yes.  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.org Ed, You are distracting the topic again, take this to another thread.

typical

[terraricca]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 31 2012,17:23)

Pierre Firstly, Devo posted these scriptures, not me.  But I am glad he did, for it's plain to see the discrepancies. Quote I have check spot your quoted scriptures and see what and why , so my first question to you is; tell me what impact does it make with the omitted parts and tell me why it was omitted or not as the KJV   Your Alexandrian gods omitted a vital word, so you tell me why it was omitted and what impact is has. One would assume that anyone can spot these differences, and the impact on the completed sentence? Now do I have to spoon feed you? AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners. The word Repent is of no value to the Alexandrian mss. Luke 13:3   I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Revelation 2:22   Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. You tell me now Pierre, what impact does the requirement REPENT means to us?   And when you finish, please explain the meaning of the above verse in Rev 2:22 Teach us

J42

Quote

You tell me now Pierre, what impact does the requirement REPENT means to us? And when you finish, please explain the meaning of the above verse in Rev 2:22 Teach us

first I as well like your comments and enjoy conversation ,they very intelligently ,and straightforward ,and without a doubt better written ,I can read them with ease

sory for my broken English,

now to me the impact of the missing words parts of phrases and so on,does not matter ,

reasons ;the word of God as to be taken in its entirety than you will miss nothing ,many thing are repeated in scriptures ,I believe that God made it that way for the reason ,that all will remain as the base of it unchanged ,
so if at the lease all is said ones ,so it had been said ,why do we need to be written 20 times

only the corrupt minded people will use some verses to make a claim and stick to that verse like to the center of the earth ,if this is what they feel is going to save them ,and now make them ears deff to other info in scriptures ,this is their doing not God or anyone else.

the bible is a open letter to all human on the earth ,what you do with it is in your hands ,

Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jn 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Jn 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”

our love is for us to give ,but to whom en how we give it this is in our hands .God as given us first no matter what WE ARE IN DEBT TO HIM .

[Ed J]

Hi Mike,

Robert Stephanus scribed the Textus Receptus.
Are you suggesting that the majority of Greek texts
that he had did not have the Johannine comma in them?

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

[journey42]

Quote

1.  Do you have any source that says the Comma is in more than 5 out of 3054 known mss?  YES or NO?  (Your source listed only 4, remember?  And we know that the words were merely a marginal note in 4 of the 9 mss that contain them – which means they are IN THE TEXT of only 5 [of 3054] known mss to date.) 2.  And if you DON'T have a source that says those words are IN THE TEXT of more than 5 (of 3054), what does it tell you?  You didn't answer this question before, so I hope you will this time:  Do you suppose that 3049 mss were written by heretics that purposely omitted those extra words, and that only 5 mss were written by God-fearing righteous men who left those words in?  YES or NO? 3.  Or does it make more sense that the words were not actually in any ms UNTIL some dude in the 14th century ADDED a marginal note into the text?  YES or NO? 4.  Even if the Comma is in Minuscule 635 in the 11th century (as your source claims), don't you find it the least bit odd that these “sacred, God-inspired words” would find their way into only 1 of the 897 known mss up until that date?  YES or NO?

Mike, Let me give you a bit of advice, when discussing matters pertaining to God, we have to talk basic so that everyone can understand.  This Johanneum comma, is not just a comma is it, but some stupid name (I don't know how they got it) relating to the “so called” addition in Matt. So, I can give you my evidence supporting the KJV, and you can give me yours and we can continue this discussion for another 500 pages, (like you do with Jammin, going over and over the same topic) when the answer is not in books written about the bible, but in the bible itself.  So I'll give you all this drivel which you probably won't read anyway because your mind is set, and that's ok. Stay there if you wish, your choice, not mine. I am tired of looking up sites on the internet, as it makes me weary, and so time consuming, and the men backing up the KJV are only men too, not Gods, who we have to worship the very words they speak as I am more interested in what is written in the bible than men's point of views.  But If I want to show you a verse in the bible, and it's not in yours, then we have a problem don't we? So make your mind up as we go, and as long as you are genuinely seeking the truth with a pure heart, then may God lead you to better understanding in  all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, as with all of us, myself included.

Old Latin:
The Old Latin manuscripts say it this way: “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt” (verses 7-8).
This wording (which matches the King James) is similar to that of Cyprian's words in Latin about 250 AD “Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.' (The Lord says, “I and the Father are One,” and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.”).
See the King James Bible preservation lessons by Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D., Lesson 9, Textual Considerations.)

John Wycliffe was the first to give the English people a translation in their own tongue (1382), but it was based on the Latin Vulgate(a Latin Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek). William Tyndale was the first to produce an English translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts (1525), for which he suffered martyrdom. Other translations followed, based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts: Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Taverner (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva (1560), the Bishops’ (1568).
These translations were useful as forerunners of the King James Version (KJV) or Authorised Version (AV) of 1611. Within a short time of its appearance, the KJV was acknowledged as the superior and unrivalled translation. This was due to the superior scholarship of the translators: a team of the best scholars from Oxford and Cambridge, who were godly men with a high view of the Scriptures, fully committed to the accurate and faithful rendering of God’s eternal Word from the original languages into the best classical English. The KJV or Authorised Version (AV) is the Twenty- First Century English Reader’s Bible. We present this Book to our readers as THE one English translation which, above all other English Bibles, is the most complete, accurate and faithful English translation of the original inspired words of God. With the KJB, the reader will not be deceived in any matters that God has chosen to reveal to us through His inspired words.

A. Superior Original Language Texts
The textual foundation of the King James Bible is the best compared to that used by all other English Bibles that exist today. The King James Old Testament is translated from the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament text (Ben Chayyim). The Masoretes handed down this text from generation to generation, guarded it and kept it well. The majority of the modern English versions, however, were translated from other Hebrew texts like Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Samaritan Pentateuch, etc., which are different from the Traditional Masoretic Text. If the Hebrew foundation of the modern English versions and the King James Bible are different, how can their translated English words be the same? Surely, they cannot be the same. They are different. Why is the Old Testament Hebrew Text of the King James Bible superior? It is superior because: Firstly, it was preserved by the Jews. Secondly, the traditional text of the Jews was authorised by Jesus. He has never refuted any text, any word or any letter in the Hebrew Old Testament. He stamped His authorisation on the Masoretic Hebrew
He did not give His approval on the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, some scribal tradition, Josephus, Jerome, the Syriac version or any other document present at that time!In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This proves that our Lord believes in the preservation of the Scripture to the extent that every word of it has been kept intact.

The King James Bible is also based on a superior Greek New Testament, the Textus Receptus. The chief opponent of the Textus Receptus is the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament 26th edition, which is used in most colleges, universities, and seminaries today (even conservative and/or fundamental ones). The editors of this corrupt Greek Text were made up of a committee comprising unbelievers, a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and apostates. Basically, it is this same Greek Text that underlies almost all modern English versions.
The Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible, however, was received by the Church for almost 1,800 years until 1881 when Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text came into the scene. Since then, almost all preachers studied this corrupt Greek Text, but still preached out of the King James Bible (which was based on a different Greek text). Later, even the King James Bible was kicked out in favour of English Bibles that are based on the “preferred” corrupt Greek text.

[journey42]

Mike

Quote

Also remember that I am not your enemy here.  I have been enjoying your posts since you joined the site, and consider you better than me when it comes to a meek attitude, and more enlightened than me when it comes to spiritual things.  It is unfortunate that we are having a war now over something as silly as ONE of the hundreds of English translations of the scriptures.

Thank you Mike, for being so mello, they were kind words.  Despite everything, I still consider you my brother, and when you said to Devo you were still on milk, I appreciated your honesty.  I thought you had been studying for much longer, and I'm sorry for coming across harsh.  Even the milk can be a challenge, for there are many hidden meanings in the verses there, and you can learn them real fast, so you can move to solids cause time is running out, and three years is too long to stay on the milk, so we must be ready to answer any question, and back it up with solid spiritual knowledge the Lord gives us with his holy scriptures, and if they don't accept it, then so be it, the truth is for a witness, and not always to convert those who don't regard it,
but the main thing is that we labour for the Lord sowing seeds of truth, and not error, never forgetting it's the Lord that reveals all to us, his will, and the glory goes to him, not us.

Yours in Christ.

[journey42]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 31 2012,13:06)

J42 first I as well like your comments and enjoy conversation ,they very intelligently ,and straightforward ,and without a doubt better written ,I can read them with ease   sory for my broken English, now to me the impact of the missing words parts of phrases and so on,does not matter , reasons ;the word of God as to be taken in its entirety than you will miss nothing ,many thing are repeated in scriptures ,I believe that God made it that way for the reason ,that all will remain as the base of it unchanged , so if at the lease all is said ones ,so it had been said ,why do we need to be written 20 times only the corrupt minded people will use some verses to make a claim and stick to that verse like to the center of the earth ,if this is what they feel is going to save them ,and now make them ears deff to other info in scriptures ,this is their doing not God or anyone else. the bible is a open letter to all human on the earth ,what you do with it is in your hands , Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Jn 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. Jn 3:19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Jn 3:20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. Jn 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” our love is for us to give ,but to whom en how we give it this is in our hands .God as given us first no matter what WE ARE IN DEBT TO HIM .

Why thank you Pierre,
I think that's the nicest thing you have ever said to me
I really appreciate it.
Even though your english isn't perfect, I understand it perfectly!

I understand what you are saying to me, and can see where you are coming from and we will talk about this later, cause I'm off to bed now.
God bless

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 30 2012,20:46)

Robert Stephanus scribed the Textus Receptus. Are you suggesting that the majority of Greek texts that he had did not have the Johannine comma in them?

I'm merely reporting the fact that only 9 mss out of 3054 known mss have the Comma.  And only 5 of those 9 have the extra words in the text – the other 4 have the words as a marginal note.

So that means 3049 mss DON'T have those words in their text.  And surely those can't all be Alexandrian mss, right?

[Devolution]

mikeboll64,Aug. wrote:

[/quote]
Hi Mike,

Interesting how you are attacking minimalism concerning 1 John 5:7, yet support it (minimalism) when concerning the Alexandrian texts?

You need to be consistent and sort that out first bro.  

I gave you reasons why 1 John was included & the dates of the sources that referred to it, thus not only addressing your “older is better” argument in support of the Alexandrian line, but also showing that these people (all parties involved) obviously had access to older mss (now copies) written before Christian trinity doctrine even emerged textually, thus negating the need to insert something against something they didn't even know they'd be defending/promoting/inserting or was yet an established doctrine, thus undoing the thought of authorized changes that weren't even established yet to be authorized!

Because they were debating about older manuscripts that predated their decided doctrines and alterations they copied after the event.

So if any tampering took place as you accuse, then it must have taken place even before the idea that caused the “tampering”  arose in the first place. And 157 AD doesn't lend to much time allowed to do this in. We are going back to the very early period here Mike.
The period closest to when far fewer manuscripts were in existence.
How miraculous!! Lol.

Consider the  “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles Mike. The oldest “we” have (lol, just a dig)! They stretch from 157 AD – 1400's !!
And what we call verse 7 is included and agrees with the manuscripts being debated and possessed by all parties in the debate back in 200 AD!!
And these bibles weren't authored by learned men with doctrines to grind, but by unlearned men preserving what they had already received and who would not have been aware of such theological axes to grind to start with!

They weren't debating verse 7's  “inclusion” in 200 AD Mike, but it's “meaning!!!

Isn't that telling?

Because, Mike, though there are only references to the “earliest” mention of 1 John 5:7 men have, since you reject the validity of the one i am defending, i grant you that and understand that, consider this:

Can people refer to something that is not there?

Again, so these people were commenting to each other, all arguing about the meaning of what we now call verse 7, but nobody ever brought up the charge of verse 7 being added!!
In absence of that fact, what is that telling us?
That they must have also had verse 7 in their manuscripts versions also!!

Quite a enormous omission to not even address, that the other team actually had manuscripts that were added to!!
That would have been quite easy a charge to prove back then don't you think?

Stupendously easy to squash!

In such an early period of recorded manuscripts availalbe, that there would already be “thousands” of contradictory manuscripts ?
Don't you think that there would have been a lot less manuscripts let alone “versions” back then?
And as time passed, the numbers of manuscripts and “versions”  increased?
Isn't that logical?

So wouldn't then what men call the “minimal” manuscripts that contain verse 7 compared to todays many copies ,  actually be the majority manuscripts back then!!
And because the need of copying the manuscripts increased with the explosion of converts, the possibility of altering and changing the scriptures by numbers was only possible the further we progressed from the small number of originals & copies back in 150 – 200 AD? You know, like what we have today….over 5000 manuscripts?

Remembering this was only in 157 AD that they were making copies from an even older manuscript that includes verse 7?
Considering “shelf life” of manuscripts, taking into account wear and tear from handling, transportation etc, wouldn't that almost take us back to the actual originals being copied?

So what happened to the opponents of verse 7's manuscript translations from which they were originally debating Mike?
Could it be that “theirs” was the ones actually altered?
And are now the “majority”?
Since the doctrine and alterations came well after the scripture was already established as “being there” and as time passed, more and more copies were being made and distributed!

Quote

Well, that's quite perceptive of you, Devo.    I picked up a Bible for the first time about 3 years ago, so I know I have MUCH to learn.

Mike, i'm not attacking your knowledge, i'm questioning your angle of approach to the scriptures. A theological approach hinging on secular reasons of authenticity and not on doctrinal harmony.

Quote

BUT………….. don't think you can tell me that if I understood the prophesies YOUR WAY, this KJV thing will all just fall into place

I never said that to you Mike?
We are talking of 1 John 5:7, not prophecy!

Quote

because the simple fact of the matter is that the KJV was translated from the best mss they had AT THAT TIME

Which lends to my argument about saturation of manuscripts being “copied” over time. There were far less manuscripts back then (regarding my examples of 157 AD & 200 AD) , and they included v7, so therefore, they were the majority and not the minority like we see today, the result of more and more manuscripts needing copying over time relevant to church growth and needs.

Quote

and we now have many OLDER and BETTER ones to translate from Again, by this you mean the Alexandrian line. But as i have shown, they are not the oldest but are in fact pre dated by at least two centuries by that which i have already posed to you. In time, I'll put my two cents in about prophesies, but for now, we have hard cold facts to discuss concerning certain verses in the KJV (and other Bibles).

Again, i didn't mention prophecies.
And as i already pointed out, the cold hard facts you speak of concern manuscripts that appeared 200 odd years after the fact!
You are plain and simply discarding the facts that the meaning and not the inclusion of verse 7 was being debated in 200 AD!  and being debated before the doctrine was even authorized at that!! which means it could not have been added at that stage, for alterations would have been extremely easy to prove and end any attempt at alterations when far less manuscripts were available!

Quote

Let's get to it.

You see Mike?
Your approach will just have us debating back and forth like you have been doing with Jammin for years and years now with no result…if we take the theological path of authenticity related to age of manuscripts.I can just quote some professor rebutting your professors as i already have!!
We are going around in circles Mike.

I prefer scripture analysis by means of doctrinal harmony which is what i asked you to challenge yourself to do, otherwise i would, i wasn't calling you out for some self grandisement on my behalf Mike. Lets get that straight ok!

So as i requested, please answer through doctrinal reasons, why the Alexandrian is a superior and harmonious translation compared to the examples i provided, of which are the “oldest most reliable manuscripts” that you keep referring to.

This is HOW we discern the most reliable manuscripts…spiritually Mike!! Spiritually.

[Ed J]

See Mike,

The evidence is clear that 1John 5:7 was added early on – as I have suggested.

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

[mikeboll64]

Agreed Ed.  

And like I said at least twice already, I don't blame the KJV translators for the error, for they were doing the best they could with what they had to work with.  The error actually came into play many years earlier, when a scribe decided to add what was a marginal note into the text – as if those words were written by John himself. And once those words made it into the KJV, the Trinitarians grabbed hold of them so tightly – thinking those words proved a Triune Godhead – that it was like pulling teeth to remove the spurious words. But the evidence is now available to all of us, which is why the more recent English translations – despite being written by Trinitarians – don't include those spurious words. They would LOVE to include those words, but simply can't because they know the truth of the matter now. The KJV translators simply did not have the evidence available to them that we have today.

And btw, I don't discount the KJV as a good English translation either.  I'm only pointing out that it has errors, just like every other English translation.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,21:04)

I can give you my evidence supporting the KJV, and you can give me yours and we can continue this discussion for another 500 pages, when the answer is not in books written about the bible, but in the bible itself.

Which Bible is the answer in, journey?  The KJV? The NIV? NRSV? NASB? NWT?

Let me give you an example:
John 1:18
NET ©
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.  

NIV ©
No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NASB ©
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NLT ©
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.

MSG ©
No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.

BBE ©
No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is.

NRSV ©
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.

KJV ©
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

NWT
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Which Bible has the correct translation of John 1:18?  And how do we know?

For you it seems easy, because you consider the KJV as some “magical, never-wrong” translation.  To me, that seems like a simplistic fairy tale approach to take, and so I must delve deeper into the Greek mss and lexicons in an attempt to decipher which translation comes closer to the “original” Greek words that were written.

Bottom line:  The answer is not always in one particular English translation of the Hebrew and Greek words – because a translation is simply one man's (or a group of men's) best guess how certain words in one language can be properly conveyed in a different language.  There are many things to be considered, ie:  the Spanish phrase “de nada” is commonly translated into English as “you're welcome”.  But the words actually carry a meaning of “it was nothing”.  So, do we translate it as “it was nothing”, or as “you're welcome”?  THAT, my friend, is up the the MAN doing the translating.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 31 2012,23:54)

I can just quote some professor rebutting your professors as i already have!!

Devo,

Do you have reason to believe the Comma was in the AD 157 version of the Vaudois Bibles?  These Bibles ranged from 157 to 1400, right?  So it would be easy (albeit shady) for someone who knew the words were in the 1400 version to claim “The words were in the Vaudois Bibles, which range all the way back to 157” – without actually claiming those words were in the 157 version.

There is no need to play “dueling professors” here.  The FACTS of the matter are as follows:

1.  We have uncovered over 3000 Greek mss of the NT – and those words are in only 9 of them (4 of which have the words in a marginal note, and not in the actual text).

2.  There are only about 20 of those 3000 mss which are Alexandrian, which means thousands of “Antioch” mss don't include those words.

3.  The EARLIEST ms in which those words appear in the text is from the 14th century.

4.  With the exception of the NWT, the more recent English Bibles were produced by TRINITARIANS, who would love nothing more than to display those words proudly in their translations – but they don't.  Don't you think these experts and scholars have looked into the Vaudois Bible claims, and all the other vague claims your source listed?  Don't you think that if there was ANY way they could have those words in their translations, they would?

Devo, you are bucking against the known facts on this issue, simply because of your wish for the KJV to be some magical, never-wrong translation of God's word.  But the KJV is simply one of hundreds of English translations made, and it has its flaws just like all the rest.

I am anxious to get to your list.  Are you ready to move on to the first scripture in your list? After all, this thread is not just about 1 John 5:7, but about the authenticity, as a whole, of the KJV, right?

[Author]

Posts