Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How was I lying about what you said? Please show me where you are saying I misrepresented you, and even accusing me of lying about what you said so I can try to accurately represent you in honesty.
I'm terribly sorry that you seem to think I'm misrepresenting you or lying about what you said. Please show me where I did this so I can accurately apologize and be corrected.
Then we can be friends, right brother?
Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Is it something that can be adjusted?
I got the volume figured out....that guy sure looks a lot like me
Voddie is a Calvinist.
"Thank you for stating why you believe the King James Bible is not the word of God"
You've made this sort of statement repeatedly.
Hahaaaaa! Is it?
Voddie is a Calvinist.
Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Hahaaaaa! Is it?
I never reveal my identity on a forum like this....had stalkers and lots of threats before.
The icon pic is not really me..I have one of those common face types, it does look very much like me......and the grin is me all the way
Modern versions of the Bible cannot be the Word of God because they attack basic doctrines of the faith:
Let's Compare Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin" with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN." What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?
Let's Compare Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word "Joseph" with the word "father."
Let's Compare Acts 20:28
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word "blood." Does your's? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!
Let's Compare Colossians 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT "blood" from the text. What about YOUR version?
Let's Compare Daniel 3:25
"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the "Son of God." So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.
However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the "Son of God" in the passage, for many have changed it to read "a son of the gods," or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the "Son of God," or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?
Let's Compare Micah 5:2
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting."
The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from "everlasting." That is, He is eternal, as we've already seen.
Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He's from "ancient times," and others say that He's from "days of old," but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term "everlasting" DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let's Compare Luke 23:42
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," and this man addresses Jesus as "Lord." The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word "Lord" from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?
Let's Compare Matthew 6:13
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?
Let's Compare Revelation 11:17
"Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."
This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say "perversions") the words "art to come" have been taken out of the text.
Let's Compare I Timothy 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as"God" in the flesh. We know this is true, for "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means "God with us." So it is correct to say that "God was manifest in the flesh." Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word "God" out of the verse and used the word "he" in it's place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.
Let's Compare II Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn't resist the temptation to change it. The word "Study" has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to "study," or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan's scribes?
There you have it, friend, eleven good examples of how the new translations are NOT better. Satan has been very successful in convincing our generation that the new translations are necessary and that they are better. They are UNNECESSARY and they are SATANIC! In fact, the Greek text from which ALL new translations are produced was constructed by men who were deeply involved in the OCCULT (B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort)! BEWARE OF ALL THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!
The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent.
Friend, if you've been led to believe that there are better translations than the King James Bible, then you've been deceived by the Devil. We urge you to forsake the new translations and return to the grand old Book that God has used and blessed for centuries. Use the Book that God uses: The King James Authorized Version.
It is my belief that when one studies textual criticism as taught in seminaries today, one is, at the same time, indoctrinated with the philosophy, or belief that the Alands held. That belief was that variants they did not agree with, were errors. Hence, it is necessary to establish early why these families were developed, and that the Alands favored the Alexandrian type readings.You indicate that my understanding of the families of textual types is wanting. However, you go on to talk about something else, which is the method used to pick which variant is correct.
I think you understand the classifications; just wanting to establish some points early, as to avoid problems relating to the issue later. I understand, you are not an Aland, simply pointing out their position.I think I have a handle on what is a majority text classification and Alexandrian etc. So if you are going to say I do not then you need to point out why.
Tall,Alright, now you are going to spell out your criteria, over and against the methods they used of looking at external textual information, and internal, number of manuscripts, habits of scribes etc.
I get that you want to establish something less secular for determining classification. I am uncomfortable trying to rule out or rule in texts based on what we perceive to be general scribal habits as well. And certain I believe that the Spirit can be a part of the process. Yet, this again is not a flaw in my understanding of the textual families. It is just your disagreement with the method of those who apply principles of secular textual criticism to a sacred text. I can see where you are coming from, but it is not my deficiency you are describing.
I am aware you are NOT Semler. I would however ask you the following:Please observe:
Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica
The following excerpts were taken from the above site:
Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (175391) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.
There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission.
Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny divine inspiration and thereby challenge divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).
1) The soundness of pure doctrine: God never contradicts Himself, therefore, any text (while still maintaining the context of scripture), that causes a contradiction in the scripture, is obviously not the original reading of that text.
One of the reasons I believe Byzantine texts read smoother, is the simple reason that the scribes of the Byzantine text actually had a knowledge of the language they were copying. Consider if you would, the Greek Orthodox Church as well as others (not following either the Roman Catholic or Greek Churches) throughout the Byzantine Empire, were using (reading and copying) these text throughout the ages, beginning from the time of the Apostle of Pauls missionary journeys, extending to very days of the Reformation. Hence, these people would have a continued and extensive working knowledge of the Greek. Whereas, those who were part of the Roman Catholic Church (for example), would have no such working knowledge, due to the fact that their scriptures were in Latin. (Jeromes Latin Vulgate) If I make a hand written copy of something in a language I can read, it is obvious that I can check my copy with the original very easily as I make the copy, hence, I will catch most errors. If I make a hand written copy of something in a language I cannot read, I do not have the ability to check my copy as I make the copy, hence, I will miss most errors.This would often be opposed to the rule that the textual critics use that the more difficult reading is usually the best.
Their reasoning is that people are more likely to smooth out theological issues by changing the text later. Your reasoning is that God wouldn't contradict what He said in the first place.
Just be careful with that criteria because some people see contradictions that future study resolve without removing a text.
2) The antiquity of the text: is there a reasonable witness of the disputed text given A) by other copies of MSS of at least near antiquity of other disputed texts? B) by the writings of church fathers where a) the actual text is quoted; or b) the text is so nearly quoted that it is reasonable to consider this quote as a reference to the text in question?
In the case of 1 John 5:7, this may be due to the Arian Controversy. It is very possible that many of the true copies were lost during this 70 (or so) year period. This did happen early in church history.Here we do run into a bit of a problem though. Even if a reading is fairly early if it is not found in many of the manuscripts it raises the question of why.
3) Is this a text that has been accepted throughout the years by those who have held to sound biblical doctrine and exegesis?
I think if there is evidence of A) the particular text in question dating back to the early church fathers, and this witness can be traced generally throughout the ages, up to the Reformation, and B) the text in was used by the same throughout these same periods, it is evident that these people viewed the text as valid.Spell this out more, please. Which years? Since the beginning of the Christian era? Are you speaking about what has traditionally been held as orthodoxy? Do you look more at the protestant era?
To a degree though this is finding the text you want, more than just what God said. Since your current view of orthodoxy then determines which people held to that view. So it would be difficult to apply.
4) Can we reasonably accept the idea that those saints whom God both chose and used in times past to providentially preserve His words did so with that wisdom which cometh from above, for the sole purpose of delivering to His saints His perfect words?
Let us examine this for a moment. Those who believe in preservation of the scriptures, mainly hold to the idea that nothing has been lost, not that things have been added. (I touched on this under point #1.) Textual critics on the other hand, believe that the Byzantine texts have text added to them. Hence, the major part of preservation that deals with textual criticism would be Eclecticism, choosing the right variant, among the vast host of variants. It is a general rule of textual critics that the shorter reading is preferred:All of the variants were preserved or we would not have them. The question I have not been able to clarify with those who hold the KJV only view is what is meant by preserved?
This is a very interesting point. I have already stated that the Byzantine MSS (or texts) have been in use by Christians throughout the Byzantine Empire, (both in and out of the Greek Orthodox Church). But what about the two MSS that are considered the oldest and best MSS: the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus? Codex Vaticanus was kept in the Vatican library from at least at least the 1500s. The interesting thing about this was that the Vaticanus was not used by the Roman Catholic Church, due to the fact that the official Bible of the RCC was (and still is) Jeromes Latin Vulgate. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in Saint Catherines Monastery in the 1800s by Tischendorf. As the story goes, the monks were burning the pages of the Codex to keep a fire going, to stay warm. Whether this is true or not, maters not; the important thing here is that the Codex Sinaiticus was not being used by the inhabitants of the monastery. (Or anyone else for that manner.)Does this mean they simply existed somewhere at all times? Does this mean that God's church at all times was actively using them? Is the focus of this preservation leading up to the culmination in the English language in the 1600's?
To me God's word was to be held on to by the church for their use throughout the centuries from the start of the Christian faith.
I see some value in your suggestion.
To me it is evident that whenever God has spoken to man His word has the desired effect that He wanted it to have. For some it brought conviction, for some condemnation, for some salvation, depending on how it was received. However, our discussion here seems more limited.
We do not in fact have ALL The words God ever inspired man to say available to us today. The Scripture speaks of various prophets in the Old and New testament that we do not have all the words they prophesied. So it cannot mean that every word ever inspired is preserved in some way we have access to. We do not.
It seems in this discussion we are particularly talking about the (mostly) agreed upon canon of Scripture. The Scriptures themselves went through the process of being recognized as Canon. Now I think that the inspiration in them was recognizable enough that there was little doubt in most cases in the NT, though a couple books were debated. So in one sense the canon and the process that brought it about is tied to this topic.
If the discussion is on the preservation of the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments, then we have to look at some additional related topics.
The nature of inspiration becomes important. Some see the inspiration of the scriptures as word for word, verbal inspiration, just as God picked the words. Some do not. Some see even within verbal inspiration that some prophets use different vocabulary, often based on their own background. Hence they posit that God selected the words, but did so from the prophet' own vocabulary. Again, others don't see it this way. So the doctrine of inspiration, and particularly verbal inspiration, certainly plays into the whole question.
Was inspiration about every precise word to begin with?
One of the reasons I believe Byzantine texts read smoother, is the simple reason that the scribes of the Byzantine text actually had a knowledge of the language they were copying. Consider if you would, the Greek Orthodox Church as well as others (not following either the Roman Catholic or Greek Churches) throughout the Byzantine Empire, were using (reading and copying) these text throughout the ages, beginning from the time of the Apostle of Pauls missionary journeys, extending to very days of the Reformation.
Hence, these people would have a continued and extensive working knowledge of the Greek. Whereas, those who were part of the Roman Catholic Church (for example), would have no such working knowledge, due to the fact that their scriptures were in Latin. (Jeromes Latin Vulgate) If I make a hand written copy of something in a language I can read, it is obvious that I can check my copy with the original very easily as I make the copy, hence, I will catch most errors. If I make a hand written copy of something in a language I cannot read, I do not have the ability to check my copy as I make the copy, hence, I will miss most errors.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: Do we have a smoother theological reading in the Byzantine text type because that is what God gave, and it was copied properly by those who understood the language? And, is the reason for the harsher theological reading due to the inability of the copyists to read the language they were copying?
Jack said:In the case of 1 John 5:7, this may be due to the Arian Controversy. It is very possible that many of the true copies were lost during this 70 (or so) year period. This did happen early in church history.
Jack said:I think if there is evidence of A) the particular text in question dating back to the early church fathers, and this witness can be traced generally throughout the ages, up to the Reformation, and B) the text in was used by the same throughout these same periods, it is evident that these people viewed the text as valid.
Let us examine this for a moment. Those who believe in preservation of the scriptures, mainly hold to the idea that nothing has been lost, not that things have been added. (I touched on this under point #1.) Textual critics on the other hand, believe that the Byzantine texts have text added to them. Hence, the major part of preservation that deals with textual criticism would be Eclecticism, choosing the right variant, among the vast host of variants. It is a general rule of textual critics that the shorter reading is preferred:
Jack said:This is a very interesting point. I have already stated that the Byzantine MSS (or texts) have been in use by Christians throughout the Byzantine Empire, (both in and out of the Greek Orthodox Church).
But what about the two MSS that are considered the oldest and best MSS: the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus?
If requested, I will give a very brief synopsis of the history of the development of the English language. I will simply offer this at this juncture; since (not if) God knew that English would be a world language as history shows, one could easily see that God has used the King James Bible to evangelize the world. God has used the Byzantine Texts to translate the New Testament into languages world over, not simply the King James Bible.
I suspect Brother you are a part of the KJV only crowd. Two of the most modern translations render Isiah 7:14 this way: NIV - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin....." and the CEV (Contemporary English Version) "But the Lord will still give you proof. A virgin.....". I have been a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ since 1949 and have seen the KJV only crowd argue the translation they favor is THE only true Word of God. Time and again they have been proved wrong. I can only assume they do this for two possible reasons: They have the KJV memorized and don't want to learn a new version or they want to spend much time teaching or preaching translating the translation. The KJV was written in the language of the English street. That made it easy for those who could read to understand God's Word. Why else would anyone want to stop people today from having a Bible written in the common language of today so they could easily understand it?.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?