KJV discussion

[JohnJones]

Obviously one of them is corrupt, so if you don't believe that the Textus Receptus is corrupt then by default you believe that the Alexandrain text is corrupt, and vice versa.

But no one even needs to prove that the Alexandrian text is corrupt because it proves itself to be so in that it was not in use from the 4th century to the 1840s. The only times at which it was used were some undeterminable amount of time during the 4th century and the 1840s to present - there's a gap of about 1440 years where it was virtually unkown and unused. The Textus Receptus was in continual use from the 4th century to present (I would dare say from the point at which the last word of Scripture was written to the present but the great proponents of the Alexandrian text, Westcott and Hort, only agree that it goes back to the 4th century so I'll just keep going with their date so that I'll be using a non-partisan date).

 

[Reader Nilus]

Ruckman is not a source, the fact is that the myth and down right lies told about the Codex Sinaiticus is beyond belief.
Jeff the Finn

 

[JohnJones]

Ruckman is not a source, the fact is that the myth and down right lies told about the Codex Sinaiticus is beyond belief.
Jeff the Finn

I've never read anything written by Ruckman. My information about the Alexandrian text actually comes from those who favor it, from Westcott and Hort themselves and from tracts alleging that the Alexandrian text is superior to the TR, etc.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Where did your mythology of the Great Codex Sinaiticus come from, clearly it was not from objective history?
Jeff the Finn

 

[JohnJones]

Eusebius shows in his Church History that corrupt copies of Scripture were made by Arian/Arian-like heretics with the express purpose of supporting their heresy that Christ is not God.

Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History - Chapter XXVIII. Those Who First Advanced the Heresy of Artemon; Their Manner of Life, and How They Dared to Corrupt the Sacred Scriptures. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P3435_1602605 (The below is quoted from the above):

1. In a laborious work by one of thesewriters against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.
2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:
3. "For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.
4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose 5 works Christ is spoken of as God.
5. For who does not know the works of Irenaeus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.
6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?"
7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:
8. "I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day.
9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.
10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month. When 11 he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions.
11. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion."
12. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows: "They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
13. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.
14. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.
15. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.
16. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different.
17. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.
18. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition."
    Let this suffice for these things.

 

[JohnJones]

Eusebius Church History Chapter XXIX. The Heresy of Tatian http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-09.htm#P2690_1285526

"But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the l hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style."​

 

[JohnJones]

Tertullian Against Marcion, Book Four, Chapter V.-By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-31.htm#P5350_1660377

"For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke’s Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way -- when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on."​

Luke 11:2-4
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
(KJV)

Why does the Alexandrian text remove the underlined phrases? Because they are missing in Marcion's perversion. Of the four Gospels, the Alexandrian text changes Luke's the most, that is, it is based on Marcion's perversion. See below.

Luke 11:2-4
2 And He said to them, When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.
(NASB)

 

[JohnJones]

One more thing. In John 1:18 the Alexandrian, that is the most up to date Nestle-Aland text, says monogenes theos but the Textus Receptus says monogenes huios . Literally, the Textus Receptus says "only-begotten Son" and the Alexandrian "only-begotten God." Now some might say "Great! the Alexandrian text makes Christ's deity more apparent thus showing that it is not an Arian perversion" but think again! Observe the NASB which is the only Alexandrian translation to actually translate what the Alexandrian text says in this verse, except the New World Translation:

(John 1:18 NNAS) "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

(John 1:18 NWT) "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotton god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father, is the one that has explained him."​

The NASB, NWT, and the Alexandrian text that they are based on are clearly teaching that there are two Gods, one invisible, and one visible. Why? Well, Arianism NEVER said that Jesus was not A God; Arianism said Jesus is not THE God. This is a case of Arian perversion in the Alexandrian text. Arius believed Christ was a lower deity, a lesser-god, as modern day Jehovah's Witnesses do, which is exactly why the Alexandrian texts says "the only begotten God" and is exactly why the JW's use the Alexandrian text. To Arius, the Father is the unbegotten God and Christ is the begotten God, hence lower than the Father and a completely different God and God in a completely different way. In orthodoxy, however, the Father and Son are both God in exactly the same way and the Father is the unbegotten person whereas Christ is the begotten person, but they are the same God. Please view the following article: http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/kjv08.html#02

 

[Reader Nilus]

Now one has to wonder why the oldest ORTHODOX monastery would preserve, PRESERVE a corrupted text? Of course it was not a corrupted text, it is only in the minds of the true believers in the KJV only religion.
Jeff the Finn

 

[JohnJones]

Now one has to wonder why the oldest ORTHODOX monastery would preserve, PRESERVE a corrupted text?

First, it was in their trash. Second, just because you own a book don't mean you agree with it. Third, they could have been polytheistic Arians masquerading as Orthodox. It's not like you would know. BUT the text itself is proof enough - it shows polytheistic Arian corruption in John 1:18, Marcionite corruption in Luke, Tatianite paraphrase througout the gospels, and Theodotus-ic readings as well.

 

[Reader Nilus]

You seem to want to believe in lies and half truths of the Ruckmanites, instead of the truth. The Codex was not in their trash, but truth is not what you are interested in, that is clear.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about, when it comes to the Holy Monks of St Catherine's, nor are you showing any knowing whatsoever of Orthodoxy! Nor do you seem to be aware of St Athanasius was from according to the KJV Only religionists that cess pit of heresy, Alexandra!!! The very champion of Nicene Orthodoxy comes from Alexandra, the very place the Alexandran text comes from, inside of an Orthodox Monastery no less! True believers will believe no matter what facts are against them, and it is clearly the case here.
Jeff the Finn

 

[JohnJones]

An early Gnostic document, discovered in Egypt in 1945, called "Trimorphic Protennoia" says the following:

"Then, moreover, the God who was begotten gave them (the Aeons) a power of life on which they might rely, and he established them. The first Aeon he established over the first: Armedon, Nousanios, Armozel; the second he established over the second Aeon: Phaionios, Ainios, Oroiael; the third over the third Aeon: Mellephaneus, Loios, Daveithai; the fourth over the fourth: Mousanios, Amethes, Eleleth. Now those Aeons were begotten by the God who was begotten - the Christ - and these Aeons received as well as gave glory. They were the first to appear, exalted in their thought, and each Aeon gave myriads of glories within great untraceable lights, and they all together blessed the perfect Son, the God who was begotten."


So, why does the Alexandrain text say "only-begotten God" in John 1:18 while the Textus Receptus says "only-begotten Son"? It's obvious: Gnostic and Arian influences in Alexandria Egypt!

 

[JohnJones]

You seem to want to believe in lies and half truths of the Ruckmanites, instead of the truth. The Codex was not in their trash, but truth is not what you are interested in, that is clear.

I got the bit about it being in the trash from an English translation of Tischendorf's own account of what happened which was in a PRO-Alexandrian text publication, a publication bashing the KJV and saying that Sinaiticus is the best and oldest manuscript! Have you ever read Tischendorf's account of what happened? I didn't think so.

Nor do you seem to be aware of St Athanasius was from according to the KJV Only religionists that cess pit of heresy, Alexandra!!!

He was exiled by the Arians. It was during that time that they changed John 1:18 to be a polytheistic Gnostic/Arain perversion and so on. And when he got back that's when all their manuscripts ended up in the trash that we found them in.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Finding Codex Sinaiticus
The story of his finding the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, has all the interest of a romance. He reached the convent on January 31; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On the 4th February he had resolved to return home without having gained his object. "On that day, when walking with the provisor of the convent, he spoke with much regret of his ill-success. Returning from their promenade, Tischendorf accompanied the monk to his room, and there had displayed to him what his companion called a copy of the Septuagint, which he, the ghostly brother, owned. The MS. was wrapped up in a piece of cloth, and on its being unrolled, to the surprise and delight of the critic the very document presented itself which he had given up all hope of seeing. His object had been to complete the fragmentary Septuagint of 1844, which he had declared to be the most ancient of all Greek codices on vellum that are extant; but he found not only that, but a copy of the Greek New Testament attached, of the same age, and perfectly complete, not wanting a single page or paragraph." This precious fragment, after some negotiations, he obtained possession of, and conveyed it to the Emperor Alexander, who fully appreciated its importance, and caused it to be published as nearly as possible in facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting.
That does not sound like a trash heap to me!
Jeff the Finn

 

[JohnJones]

Tischendorf's own account of what happened: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html

"It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire." (Tischendorf)

Here Tischendorf explains how he found the manuscript in the waste-basket that was containing manuscripts to be burned to heat the room. He is only allowed to 43 sheets.​

"...and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way."

In other words, he said "I'm not content with these 43 sheets but I want the whole manuscript, so you take it out of the trash and hold on to it and I'll be back with money."​

"I resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. Having set out from Leipzig in January, 1853, I embarked at Trieste for Egypt, and in the month of February I stood for the second time in the Convent of Sinai." (Tischendorf)

"But I felt myself more and more urged to recommence my researches in the East...for the Emperor of Russia, led me, in the autumn of 1856, to submit to the Russian Government a plan of a journey for making systematic researches in the East...People were astonished that a foreigner and a Protestant should presume to ask the support of the Emperor of the Greek and Orthodox Church for a mission to the East...It obtained his approval in the month of September, 1858, and the funds which I asked for were placed at my disposal. Three months subsequently my seventh edition of the New Testament, which had cost me three years of incessant labour, appeared; and in the commencement of January, 1859, I again set sail for the East." (Tischendorf)

***I cannot here refrain from mentioning the peculiar satisfaction I had experienced a little before this. A learned Englishman, one of my friends, had been sent into the East by his Government to discover and purchase old Greek manuscripts, and spared no cost in obtaining them. I had cause to fear, especially for my pearl of the Convent of St. Catherine; but I heard that he had not succeeded in acquiring anything, and had not even gone as far as Sinai--"for," as he said in his official report, "after the visit of such an antiquarian and critic as Dr. Tischendorf, I could not expect any success." I saw by this how well advised I had been to reveal to no one my secret of 1844.*** (Tischendorf)

"...he [monk at St. Catherines] took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas." (Tischendorf)

What's he saying here is that the monk from 15 years ago kept the manuscript he found, waiting for the money that had been promised so long ago. What the monk had wrap in the cloth was what he took out of the trash 15 years ago in anticipation of receiving a large sum of money from Tischendorf in the future, as Tischendorf himself explains.​

 

[BBAS 64]

Obviously one of them is corrupt, so if you don't believe that the Textus Receptus is corrupt then by default you believe that the Alexandrain text is corrupt, and vice versa.

But no one even needs to prove that the Alexandrian text is corrupt because it proves itself to be so in that it was not in use from the 4th century to the 1840s. The only times at which it was used were some undeterminable amount of time during the 4th century and the 1840s to present - there's a gap of about 1440 years where it was virtually unkown and unused. The Textus Receptus was in continual use from the 4th century to present (I would dare say from the point at which the last word of Scripture was written to the present but the great proponents of the Alexandrian text, Westcott and Hort, only agree that it goes back to the 4th century so I'll just keep going with their date so that I'll be using a non-partisan date).

Good Day, JohnJones

Well, if that is you historical proof to up hold that the Text is corupt as a fact then so be it. I am sure why you can see that does fail to meet any standards of historical proof for believing this assertion on your part as factual.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[PreacherFergy]

When you think of the phrase "Majority Text" you may think that it means the majority of all manuscripts right? Well, the majority text of all manuscripts is the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which is attested by 95% of all manuscripts. On the other hand, however, the text that is commonly called the "Majority Text" is simply the majority reading of the Egyptian mss only, that is the majority reading of only 5% of existing manuscripts. Which is more of a majority, the majority readings of a majority of manuscripts (95% of mss.) or the majority reading of a minority of manuscripts (5% of mss.)? The answer is obvious. The Textus Receptus is the majority.

No, the Textus Receptus is not the majority. Who do you get such information from? Samuel Gipp, G.A. Riplinger, or someone else? Perhaps Dr. Ruckman?

Also, do you think "word of God" or "word of the Lord" should be in Acts 19:20? The Textus Receptus and the KJV disagree in that passage.

Also, what do you think of the textual issue in these passages,
2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

For you to subscribe to a perfect translation would be to mean that God "mest up" in the above passages. God didn't mess up at all.

We truly have God's Word in our hands, His Word has been preserved for us, but that doesn't necessitate a perfect translation.

I'm rather tired of the unscriptural and circular arguments employed by those who believe that the KJV is inspired, in either word or deed. Therefore, for the past week or so I've been working on an article refuting some of the false notions and assertions by G.A. Riplinger. Suffice it to say that it's going to take a while.

As one Christian scholar put it, there are so many holes in the book New Age Bible Versions that fixing them or "plugging" them up is like trying to plug up a chain link fence

 

[PreacherFergy]

Oh, and more thing I must add.

What edition of the Textus Receptus would you buy were you to go out and buy one today?

 

[PreacherFergy]

{listens to the crickets chirping}

 

[PaladinValer]

1. The Majority Text disagrees with the TR more times than it agrees with it; about 3:1 I believe. Your belief that they are the same is absolutely rediculous.
2. The true Majority Text during the first seven centuries CE are what are called the "Minority Texts" today.
3. You want the full "Our Father" prayer? Look in the Gospel of St. Matthew. WOW! Its right there! Even in the NRSV, RSV, Orthodox Study Bible, NASB, NIV, NJB, NAB, and all the others! Amazing! [/sarcasm] The idea that the NRSV, etc, delete it is a load of lies, false accusations, and is, quite frankly, sinful to say. Same thing goes for the "blood" and this and that, and etc etc etc.
4. Did you know that only a tiny portion of Codex Sinaiticus was found in the trash? The rest was in storage. In fact, even more missing pages were found after the initial discovery in 1971. In addition, the Monks didn't know of the value of the papers, mainly because their importance was of unknown value, nothing more.
5. The monks were of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and accepted all the books therein Sinaiticus as either Scripture or part of Holy Tradition.
6. How the living heck is the Eastern Orthodox Church Arian when the monastery was under the goverance of Tzar Alexander II?! Have you no shame in your absolutely wild and absurd accusations?!
7. You want something Arian? I'll give you one: St. John 1:18 has "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." Wait...that isn't in the KJV...its in my NRSV! In fact, the KJV has it the same way the NWT has it! Now which translation is Arian? And lets also remember that the Mormons use the KJV, and they reject the Trinity.