Bible Study 121 Reasons why the NIV is a false bible

[asb4God]

Not True

The attack upon the Textus Receptus centers on the one Dutch Reformation scholar responsible for publishing it, Desiderius Erasmus.

I haven't even mentioned Erasmus. I haven't attacked him or the textus receptus. I have merely shown that the phrase "tou Christou" did not exist prior to the 8th Century.

What do YOU, solo, say about this?

The assumption of the enemies of God's Word is that, if you can somehow discredit Erasmus or his Greek text, then you can discredit the AV.

Silly. Because we can point to sound scientific study and demonstrate before all the world that the phrase "tou Christou" did not exist prior to the 8th Century, we are "enemies of God's Word"? How silly is that?! But, you will note that I did not "discredit Erasmus or his Greek text." Rather, I gave credit where credit was due: those documents which did not contain the phrase in question, all of which were much older than the 8th C.!

These men then level their guns at Erasmus, attacking him personally and his Greek text. Then they sit back in smug satisfaction in imagining they have accomplished their goal.

See above.

This material that I will present is by no means new. It is easily and readily available. Yet critics of the TR/AV choose to ignore it and rather parrot old and recycled arguments that they get from each other instead of relying on new research.

I haven't ignored it. My arguments are my own, from my own research, looking at all the evidence available.

Examples abound, from the writings of John R. Rice to Robert Sumner's booklet Bible Translations and others. A very recent example is cited by David Cloud in O Timothy, volume 12, issue 6, on pages 19 and 20. Cloud reviews an article published by Bob Jones University in their Biblical Viewpoint (Nov. 1994) by S. E. Schnaiter, in which he simply rehashes arguments he got from someone else.

I haven't done this. I have created my own arguments.

The AV 1611 translators also had the readings of Codex B before them and rejected them as did Erasmus. Neither was ignorant of them. Erasmus also had access to Codex D, Codex Bezae but also rejected it. The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them.

What of all the others I've mentioned?

Perhaps the rationale for rejecting them is flimsy? Perhaps the nefarious deed was done back then, when it was more important to save face and not upset the apple cart by offering alternative translations in a translation ordered by the KING! You think?

Hey, solo. Have YOU got anything to add? I see you can cut and paste, but how do YOU argue against these far superior documents which demonstrate without question that the phrase "tou Christou" did not exist prior to the 8th Century?

Scott 8-)

 

[von]

asb- I am truly sorry for the mistake with your name. As aggrevated as I get I would not call you out of your name. If I did I would stand up and say so. It truly was a mistake. Guess I should get my glasses.
I am happy with the KJV and whatever you all want to read that is up to you.
Tzalam- Thanks for this thread. It confirmed alot of things for me. Most of the churches I know of use the NIV and I don't care for that Bible and now I will really give them someting to say on this thread. I am not going to sit in a church that uses any other version but the KJV. It worked for our ancestors and it works for me. Thanks again!

 

[Solo]

The following is an article by J. Ecob; Modern Versions and Ancient Manuscripts retrieved from http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html

The Textus Receptus contains "Tou Xristou" and was translated from early manuscripts and is described in detail in the article. The modern translations omit many portions of scripture and is also described more fully in the article. Note the following excerpts:

Five of the oldest codices are Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and it is upon the evidence of these, and their small company of allies, that the Greek texts of Lachmann 1842-50; Tischendorf 1865-72; Tregelles 1857-72; Westcott and Hort 1881, rely.

In fact Westcott and Hort, who dominated the Revised Version Committee of 1881, accepted what they called a neutral text. Only Codex Aleph and Codex B, in their opinion, preserve this text in its purest form. Of these two, when they d iffer, B is preferred to Aleph, in which "the scribes bold and rough manner has endured all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous than in B. " Scrivener, Page 289, Volume II.

But how carefully written were these great UNCIALS on which our modern versions are based. Let us look at Aleph, B and D.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." Scrivener, Page 120, Volume I.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture -- a fact which is not always apparent due to the practice of grouping verses.

The article is posted below in its entirety due to the importance of understanding of this thread.

MODERN VERSIONS AND ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS
By J. Ecob
J. Ecob, 12 Ningoola Way, Orange N.S.W. 2800, Australia

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Lord Jesus Christ said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY" -- Matthew 24:35
Modern Versions of the New Testament claim the best and most ancient manuscripts as their authority for a multitude of omissions and changes. This article examines the truth of the assumption that the -- "most ancient manuscripts, are the best."

Modern Versions, have followed to a large extent the Greek Text prepared by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The Text of the Revised Version 1881 was influenced greatly by these scholars and the Nestles Text is a collation of three (3) texts, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and Bernhard Weiss.

Westcott and Hort recognised as their supreme authorities, only two (2) manuscripts, Aleph and B, and these are among the five (5) ancient manuscripts appealed to by modern versions.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT

In 323 AD, Constantine became Emperor of Rome and declared Christianity the state religion. Prior to this time, during periods of persecution, Christians copied and kept the Bible at the risk of their lives. Bibles were burned by the pagans whenever they were in Christendom.

The oldest New Testament Greek vellum manuscripts were probably written during the reign of Constantine in the 4th Century. It has been suggested that Codex B was one of 50 copies which Constantine had made to produce a common Bible, satisfying all factions in Christendom. In the 7th Century the Egyptian, Syrian and North African Churches were largely eliminated by the Mohammedan invasion.

In Rome, Latin early became the sacred language and replaced Greek in the copies of scripture. This influence spread to the North African Provinces of the Roman Empire. At the end of the 4th Century, Jerome stated that there "were as many Latin Texts as there were manuscripts." Hence he was asked by Pope Damasus (382AD) to produce the authoritative Latin Version, which came to be known as the Latin Vulgate.

The Greek speaking Byzantine Empire, preserved from the Mohammedan invasion, continued till the 15th Century, (the advent of printing). It was here, where the original language of the New Testament was spoken, that God preserved for us the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

Just as the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament was preserved among the Hebrew speaking Jews, so the Greek Text of the New Testament was preserved in the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire. Thus the Byzantine Text, the Traditional Text, -- 'The Greek Vulgate' and the Received Text are synonomous terms each describing the 'True Text' as it has held sway in the hearts of Christians from the earliest times. It is in fact the "majority text" -- the text preserved in the majority of manuscripts.

In 1516 AD, the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was published by the brilliant scholar, Erasmus. It is evidence of the overruling providence of God, that although he used only a few Greek manuscripts, his text is in general agreement with 90% to 95% of the 5,000 or more manuscripts available today! The manuscripts he used, were therefore representative of the commonly accepted text.

It is noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3) Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome, he did not use Codex Vaticanus (b) when compiling the first printed text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose text is the basis for most modern translations.)

In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.

Between 1516-1526 Erasmus produced four (4) more editions of the Greek Text and in 1550 Stephens publ ished a similar text incorporating the valuable verse divisions as they appear in the Authorised Version (A.V.) Beza's ten (10) editions (1565-1611) varied only slightly and his text was reprinted later by Elzevir with very minor modification.

Elzevir's two (2) editions were published in 1624 and 1633. The latter was the first text to be called The Textus Receptus or Received Text. This title arose from Elzevir's statement in the preface to the 1633 edition "Now you have the text received by all." However, the term Textus Receptus may equally apply to the texts of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza and Elzevir.

G.R. Berry Ph.D. in his introduction to the interlinear Greek/English New Testament Zondervan publication refers to Stephens' and Elzevir's editions and states "in the main, they are one and the same, and either of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."

Dr. Edward F. Hills states "in all essentials, the New Testament text first printed by Erasmus, and later by Stephens (1550) and Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the traditional text (Byzantine text) providentially preserved in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts .... It is from this Textus Receptus that the King James version was made" (Believing Bible Study Page 37).

During the 19th Century, Textual Critics, such as Lachmann, Tischen-dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort expounded the theory, that because the vast majority of manuscripts are recent, i.e. later than 9th Century (only 500 to 1,000 years old) they were therefore subject to greater error due to copyist slips. Each scribe was assumed to have repeated the errors of previous scribes and of course added a few of his own.

It has also been assumed by some, that scribes altered scripture, almost at will, if their theological views differed from the copies before them. This Is simply not true. Such a statement ignores the facts of Textual Criticism and the providence of God in preserving His Word. For instance, the oldest extant copy of the Old Testament Hebrew Text, dates about 900 AD. Yet the same Hebrew text was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating about 100 BC -- a gap of 1,000 years without change! The same providential care applies to the New Testament as it did to the Old Testament.

Westcott and Hort could not understand why the Alexandrian manuscripts were not copied in vast numbers as were the Byzantine manuscripts. They propounded the theory that somebody must have produced the Byzantine Text about the 4th Century. Westcott and Hort called it the "Syrian Text." This theory has absolutely no historical foundation. It is a figment of their imagination to excuse them for rejecting the vast majority of manuscripts. Surely such a major recension of the text, if it had occurred, would have been documented in church history. This is especially so, as major doctrinal issues of that period are recorded in considerable detail, e.g. Council of Nicea 325 AD which dealt with the Arian heresy. History is silent about any revision of the Text in Syria, Antioch or Constantinople!!

While Westcott and Hort were introducing their so called "neutral text" to the Revised Version Committee 1881, the true text was strongly defended by such scholars as Dean Burgon and Dr. Scrivener.

Dean Burgon, who personally added approximately 400 manuscripts to the list, was a man of massive scholastic ability and intimate personal acquaintance with available manuscripts. His book 'The Revision Revised' is considered a masterpiece in the defence of the Received Text.

Dr. Scrivener spent 40 years in manuscript research and in his day (end of the 19th Century) had personally examined more manuscripts than any other scholar. When the R.V. 1881 was translated Dr. Scrivener, who was on the Committee, fought a running battle with Westcott and Hort for 10 years. Westcott and Hort, who were also on the Committee, endeavoured to incorporate the renderings of a FEW ancient manuscripts, while Scrivener evaluated the testimony of ALL the manuscripts. Unfortunately Westcott and Hort had a sympathetic majority, and decisions were made by vote of the Committee.

ARE THE MOST ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS THE BEST?

The following evidence will show that:
The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily carefully written.
The oldest manuscripts extant are not necessarily copied from oldest manuscript master.
The oldest manuscripts were subject to the greatest corruption.
The oldest manuscripts are in perpetual disagreement with each other.

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CAREFULLY WRITTEN

Those who have examined the ancient manuscripts, indicate that some of the oldest manuscripts are most carelessly written.

Greek N.T. manuscripts are divided into two groups, UNCIALS and CURSIVES. Uncials are those written in capital letters, while cursives are in lower case letters. Uncial manuscripts are generally considered older than cursive manuscripts although cursire writing was known in pre-Christian times.

UNCIAL manuscripts are generally designated by capital letters of our alphabet, and are referred to as Codex A, Codex B, etc.

Five of the oldest codices are Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and it is upon the evidence of these, and their small company of allies, that the Greek texts of Lachmann 1842-50; Tischendorf 1865-72; Tregelles 1857-72; Westcott and Hort 1881, rely.

In fact Westcott and Hort, who dominated the Revised Version Committee of 1881, accepted what they called a neutral text. Only Codex Aleph and Codex B, in their opinion, preserve this text in its purest form. Of these two, when they d iffer, B is preferred to Aleph, in which "the scribes bold and rough manner has endured all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous than in B. " Scrivener, Page 289, Volume II.

But how carefully written were these great UNCIALS on which our modern versions are based. Let us look at Aleph, B and D.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." Scrivener, Page 120, Volume I.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture -- a fact which is not always apparent due to the practice of grouping verses.

It will also explain charges by some critics that the Received Text is conflate (i.e. a text expanded by the inclusion of readings from different sources). Once Codex B is adopted as the final authority, any text which does not maintain the omissions of B, must be conflate... but only as it compares with B!

Codex Bezae Graeco-Latinus (D) (5th or 6th Century) "The manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman and later by 8 or 9 different revisors." And again: "No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (600 in ACTS alone) countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin andCuretonian Syriac Version." Scrivener, Pages 128 and 130, Volume I.

The Curetonian Version is recognised as a corrupt Syriac version, while the second century Peshitta, called the "Queen of Versions," was the commonly accepted Syrian version. The Peshitta is in. agreement with later Greek manuscripts, and provides a vital link between the text used by the Early Church Fathers and the Received Text.

It has been suggested by Dr. Rendel Harris, that Codex D may even have been a translation back to Greek from a Latin translation.

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS EXTANT ARE NOT NECESSARILY COPIED FROM THE OLDEST MASTER MANUSCRIPT
Manuscripts were hand written on various materials until the 15th Century. (Printing was invented in 1450 AD). Many manuscripts were written on vellum. This was a fine skin of goat, calf or antelope and was extremely durable. Copies in quite reasonable condition are available today dating back to about 350 AD, i.e. 1,600 years old! Since print-replaced hand copying in the 15th Century, we can sssume that even the latest manuscripts are at least 500 years old, while many from the 900 AD period are nearly 1,100 years old!

The life expectancy of a manuscript was far greater than our paper books. Many 70 year old books have deteriorated today to a condition where they cannot be read without damage.

If the average life of a vellum manuscript was 350 years, (allowing for wear) it would only require four at the most copies from the day of the apostles to the advent of printing.

It therefore, does not automatically follow, that a manuscript written in 350 AD was copied from an older manuscript than one copied in 500 AD.

Furthermore, a 200 year difference in the age of manuscripts is not substantial when we realise that the assessments of age are only based on the estimates of scholars who at times are in sharp disagreement.

The style of writing is the main criterion for age: Quote "The style of writing adopted in the manuscripts . . . forms the simplest and surest criteria for approximating the date of the documents." (Scrivener, Page 29, Volume I). We must remember that the practice of dating manuscripts did not begin till the 10th Century so that the age of all manuscripts prior to this time, are estimates based, in the main, on changes in style.

The difficulties encountered by scholars in putting an accurate date on an ancient manuscript are illustrated by the following quote: "The Herculanean papyri, buried from 79 A D downwards MAY PROBABLY BE A CENTURY OLDER STILL . . . Hence from three to four hundred years must have elapsed betwixt the date of the Herculanean rolls and that of our earliest Biblical (N.T.) manuscripts. YET THE FASHION OF WRITING CHANGED BUT LITTLE DURING THE INTERVAL!" (Scrivener, Page 33, Volume I).

While some experts estimate the date of Isaiah A of the Dead Sea Scrolls, at the first or second century BC, G.R. Driver contends that they date about 73 AD... a difference of 248 years.

Allowing for differing styles of the scribes, we must therefore agree that dating of early manuscripts is extremely difficult. Perhaps a tolerance of + 100 years would be reasonable in many cases.

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS WERE SUBJECT TO THE GREATEST CORRUPTION

Differences in manuscripts fall into well defined categories. The majority of these are scribal slips of a minor nature such as spelling errors, punctuation, missing one line or word, placing in a word which sounds like the true word, repetition, transposition, etc. Only very few of the approximately 5,000 manuscripts can be said to have been changeo by deliberate corruption.

After classifying 18 out of 20 ways that manuscripts vary, Dr. Scrivener states: "The great mass of various readings we have hitherto attempted to classify are manifestly due to mere inadvertance or human frailty, and certainly cannot be imputed to any deliberate intention of transcribers to tamper with the text of Scripture."

The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the ol.dest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.

Scrivener states: "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used manuscripts far inferior to those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus Receptus."

By the science of textual criticism it is possible to identify where copyist slips have occurred. This is done by comparing the available documents. The probability of all the scribes spelling the same words incorrectly, omitting the same line, word or verse, is extremely remote. Especially when we realise that manuscripts varied in size and in the number of columns used. Thus the line endings would be different and the same visual traps would not apply to each scribe. Also many slips could be detected by subsequent scribes and corrected after parison with other manuscripts.

The only safe approach to textual criticism therefore is to use ALL manuscripts irrespective of age, and not to be limited to a FEW ancient manuscripts.

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS ARE IN PERPETUAL DISAGREEMENT

If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

THE FACT IS THEY ARE NOT -- as the following quote will show: "Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"

Or as Srivener writes:
"The point on which we insist is briefly this: that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous, that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shaft it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies of Codd, Aleph A B C D? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shaft meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison, perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one."

The following figures provided by Kirsopp Lake and his associates (1928), demonstrate that Codices Aleph, B and D are in greater disagreement among themselves than they are with the Received Text!

In Mark Chapter II alone--
Aleph, B and D differ from the Received Text 69, 71 and 95 times respectively. B differs from Aleph 34 times B differs from D 102 times D differs from Aleph 100 times.

Hoskier, who studied the differences between the texts of Aleph and B, lists the following differences in the 4 Gospels.

Matthew 656 differences Mark 567 differences Luke 791 differences John 1,022 differences

Total for four (4) Gospels 3.036 differences.

In the light of the facts stated above it is clear that we cannot have confidence in any modern version or Greek text which rejects the concordant testimony of the vast majority of manuscripts in favour of a small company of ancient, but discordant witnesses.

TWO STREAMS OF MANUSCRIPTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED

The foregoing comments serve to show that the claim of some modern translations and paraphrases, that the oldest manuscripts are the best, is altogether based on a wrong foundation.

Dr. D. Otis Fuller, in his book "WHICH BIBLE," has shown that Christians of all ages have recognised that two streams of manuscripts have always existed.

The muddy stream of the corrupt text, including the Western family (characterised by interpolations), and the Alexandrian family {character-ised by omissions) has flowed through channels such as Origen (who denied the deity of Christ) Eusebius, Jerome (who produced the Latin Vulgate), and in the last century, through Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

The pure stream of the New Testament has flowed to us through the Received Text, which Dr. D. Otis Fuller tells us: "had authority enough to become either in itself, or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church, of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, of the Gallic Church of Southern France, and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ire/and, as we// as the Official Bible of the Greek Church (BYZANTINE TEXT)." The reformers stood firmly by the Received Text, Luther's German Translation and Tyndale's magnificent English Translation were from it. When 47 scholars translated the Authorised Version in 1611, by Divine Providence the Received Text was used.

Manuscript discoveries since 1611 have NOT altered the picture. The number increased to 3791 in 1881, and since then to about 5,000, BUT STILL ABOUT 90% AGREE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT!
http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html

 

[asb4God]

Hmmm..

This is the last article that solo has pulled off the internet with which I will interact. While it is fun to show quackery for what it is, can you imagine my having to take on every goofball across the internet?? If solo has anything of his own to offer, I'd be glad to respond.

The following is an article by J. Ecob

With no due respect to this guy: he's a quack! Where do you dig up these non-scholars with KJV-only agendas??

Let's go...

The modern translations omit many portions of scripture

I've already adequately demonstrated the falsity of this claim. It is quackery to argue this.

Five of the oldest codices are Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and it is upon the evidence of these, and their small company of allies, that the Greek texts of Lachmann 1842-50; Tischendorf 1865-72; Tregelles 1857-72; Westcott and Hort 1881, rely.

First, forget about Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and W&H and think instead about Nestle-Aland and Bruce Metzger, the editors of the standard Greek New Testament. Using old names from over 100 years ago is irrelevant. It is almost as though you want to compare 1611 to 1850! How 'bout we come a little closer to the present and argue the accumulated knowledge to 2005 against 1611? What do you say?

Second, "their small company of allies," is a gross distortion - and I'm being polite, because, in fact, it is as big a lie as I've seen yet in this thread. The small company of allies belongs to KJV-only folks. EVERY seminary in America, Canada and Europe extolls these codices as extremely valuable. It is necessary, obviously, for KJV-only quack-scholars to discount them because of their power over their silly notions. I will demonstrate below how silly it is to discount them.

Of these two, when they differ, B is preferred to Aleph, in which "the scribes bold and rough manner has endured all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous than in B. " Scrivener, Page 289, Volume II.

But how carefully written were these great UNCIALS on which our modern versions are based. Let us look at Aleph, B and D.

What these passages are attempting to do is discredit those manuscripts which, in turn, discredit KJV-only "scholarship" claims for supremacy. Why is this silliness at its finest?? Because it demonstrates a profound ignorance and simple-mindedness. Let me explain the nature of manuscript creation and transmission.

ALL manuscripts have problems. They are the product of an original hand and later "correctors." The original hand (scribe) creates the manuscript from an original sitting next to him on his desk. He reads a line of text and then copies that text to the new page. This leads to the following errors (sample):

Homoioteleuton: this is the tendency to skip an entire word, phrase or line of text because the endings are the same.
Example:
Your little baby is just a cute as a button.
The shirt he's wearing is missing a button.
And congratulations on his first birthday.

Now, the scribe comes to copy this text. He copies the first line and then, seeing the word "button" at the end of the second line goes onto the third line and copies that one. Now the 3 sentence passage is only 2 sentences. We do this when we read books. We all recognize this.

Haplography: this is the simple leaving out of a letter or word.

Other issues which arise in scribal transmission: letters are confused for one another; the scribe who was copying what a lector was reading aloud and he misunderstood; the scribe intentionally wrote something different (Romans 1:16) because he thought there was a previous error that he was correcting or he was trying to harmonize the text, such as in the synoptics.

In sum, there are many more reasons why there are errors in manuscripts. But the important thing to realize is that we know what those errors are, how they were made and how to go back in time to determine what the most likely original was because of these errors.

Any attempt at discrediting even ONE manuscript because of errors is intellectual suicide. No reputable non-KJV-only scholar would take this line of reasoning seriously. We tend to call this "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

See what I mean? The very fact that we know when emendations occurred confirms for us the fact that we can go back before that emendation and arrive at the actual text.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture -- a fact which is not always apparent due to the practice of grouping verses.

No, it doesn't explain it. It explains how shoddy "scholarship," which ignores all the fundamental rules of text criticism and translation can cause quite a mess.

The Greek speaking Byzantine Empire, preserved from the Mohammedan invasion, continued till the 15th Century, (the advent of printing). It was here, where the original language of the New Testament was spoken, that God preserved for us the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

I can see where this is heading. We are going to attempt to exalt the Byzantine text over the Western and the Alexandrian. This is going to be good.

During the 19th Century, Textual Critics, such as Lachmann, Tischen-dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort expounded the theory, that because the vast majority of manuscripts are recent, i.e. later than 9th Century (only 500 to 1,000 years old) they were therefore subject to greater error due to copyist slips. Each scribe was assumed to have repeated the errors of previous scribes and of course added a few of his own.

There is no assuming going on. We can see exactly when an error was introduced into the text and know how it came to be there.

It has also been assumed by some, that scribes altered scripture, almost at will, if their theological views differed from the copies before them. This Is simply not true.

True. It is not true. However, nobody states or believes that scribes altered Scripture in order to fit their theological beliefs. What nonsense! They occasionally - as in Romans 1:16 - added text which they honestly thought was missing. Some of these emendations were theological, such as the adding of "tou Christou," but it can not honestly be stated that this was an emendation for the purpose of changing a theological position.

The same providential care applies to the New Testament as it did to the Old Testament.

Let's be a little careful, Mr. Ecob, when we talk about the "providential care" of biblical transmission. The care has been taken by text critics who careful examine the text and determine its likely original. We might rather have expected providence to lead us to a text with no errors.

Westcott and Hort could not understand why the Alexandrian manuscripts were not copied in vast numbers as were the Byzantine manuscripts...It is a figment of their imagination to excuse them for rejecting the vast majority of manuscripts.

This is certainly an appeal to the fact that because MORE manuscripts have a certain reading that alone makes the reading superior. The problem with this is obviously that if one scribal tradition happens to be more prolific in their transmission of faulty texts, those faulty texts don't suddenly become faultless by their great numbers. The Byzantine scribal tradition produced far more texts than the Alexandrian school after about the 9th Century. Prior to this, the Alexandria school was more prolific.

Surely such a major recension of the text, if it had occurred, would have been documented in church history. This is especially so, as major doctrinal issues of that period are recorded in considerable detail, e.g. Council of Nicea 325 AD which dealt with the Arian heresy. History is silent about any revision of the Text in Syria, Antioch or Constantinople!!

Nobody is concerned with some "major recension" of the text. We don't need anything so dramatic to have occurred, whether or not long dead guys once thought it had happened. The subtle changes to manuscripts are all that we need to see to figure out the original.

Westcott and Hort, who were also on the Committee, endeavoured to incorporate the renderings of a FEW ancient manuscripts, while Scrivener evaluated the testimony of ALL the manuscripts. Unfortunately Westcott and Hort had a sympathetic majority, and decisions were made by vote of the Committee.

Whatever these dead guys did is irrelevant. The living translators of the NIV, NASB and others incorporated ALL ancient manuscripts, not just a few. Let's move on up to the present, eh?

The following evidence will show that:

• The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily carefully written.
  The oldest manuscripts extant are not necessarily copied from oldest manuscript master.
  The oldest manuscripts were subject to the greatest corruption.
  The oldest manuscripts are in perpetual disagreement with each other.

1. "Carefully written" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they were written in crayon while hanging upside down from the rafters. What is relevant is whether or not we are able by the science of text criticism to determine what the most likely original was. And yes we are so able.
2. It doesn't matter from what text a manuscript was copied. What matters is that any copy is one generation later than its predecessor. This allows us, again, by the simple science of text criticism to go back to the likely original.
3. Whatever corruption exists in a manuscript is irrelevant. We have ways of determining what is corrupt, why it is corrupt and how to get back to the original.
4. Again, manuscript disagreement is not at issue. We are able to determine why arguments and disagreements exists and this helps us to arrive at the original.

Greek N.T. manuscripts are divided into two groups, UNCIALS and CURSIVES. Uncials are those written in capital letters, while cursives are in lower case letters. Uncial manuscripts are generally considered older than cursive manuscripts although cursire writing was known in pre-Christian times.

"Cursives"? How 'bout we use the correct terminology here. They are called "minuscules."

It therefore, does not automatically follow, that a manuscript written in 350 AD was copied from an older manuscript than one copied in 500 AD.

True. But, all manuscripts have a provenance. We know the text family of most of the manuscripts and can determine from what copies they most likely came. We know this for many reasons, such as the style of writing, whether or not the text is considered word for word (Alexandrian/Byzantine) or full of paraphrases and glosses (Western) and other reasons. So it is, in fact, possible to compare manuscripts to determine which one most likely arose from the other due to the errors we see or due to the provenance. Older is almost always better, but we do have ways to determine just how much better.

We must remember that the practice of dating manuscripts did not begin till the 10th Century so that the age of all manuscripts prior to this time, are estimates based, in the main, on changes in style.

Also based on provenance, changes seen in the text and many other factors, such as those dating measures known to the other sciences, as well. Yes, we know when these documents were produced.

Allowing for differing styles of the scribes, we must therefore agree that dating of early manuscripts is extremely difficult. Perhaps a tolerance of + 100 years would be reasonable in many cases.

Perhaps a tolerance of + any years should be determined by factors other than a blanket attempt at mis-dating manuscripts? Factors such as I have described above.

The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the oldest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.

Again, not only is corruption in the text irrelevant, but scholars agree that when there are errors in various manuscripts, the Alexandrian reading usually provides clarity as to what the original most likely was.

The only safe approach to textual criticism therefore is to use ALL manuscripts irrespective of age, and not to be limited to a FEW ancient manuscripts.

And that is precisely what we do. It is a probably purposeful ruse to suggest otherwise. Although, I think the "few" remark has been leveled at Westcott/Hort and, by irrational logic, transferred onto modern scholarship. Modern translators use all the available manuscripts.

If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

First, it is obvious that older manuscripts are more corrupt than earlier manuscripts. The autograph was perfect and generations of texts aftward were corrupted to various degrees.

Second, we would not need to believe that the older manuscripts are in agreement with each other. They can differ all over the place and the result is irrelevant because we know how to determine how, when and why the changes entered into the text.

"Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"

No. Your confidence should not rest on lack of corruption, but rather your ability to determine the original text by studying the corruptions! Is it me?? :-? This is an interesting statement, especially in light of the fact that he does not describe the nature of these "gross" inconsistencies. He merely uses the idea to create the spectre of inconsistency. Funny, no modern scholar has any problem with these manuscripts. Probably because they are able to determine what corruptions exist and why.

In the light of the facts stated above it is clear that we cannot have confidence in any modern version or Greek text which rejects the concordant testimony of the vast majority of manuscripts in favour of a small company of ancient, but discordant witnesses.

Wrong. If we want to place these manuscripts on a grand scale, the "majority text" on one side and those manuscripts closest to the originals on the other, where will it fall? Notice that the writer does not at all discuss the possiblity that the majority text has simply created far more copies of corrupted manuscripts than the fewer manuscripts. But, again, that balancing act is still irrelevant because the process of text criticism looks at ALL the manuscripts and seeks to determine the most likely original. So, if 80 gazillion manuscripts all say "tou Christou," but we can easily determine at what point this was added to the text (8th Century), then why does it matter that more scribes created more copies of the incorrect text than created copies of the accurate text?

The muddy stream of the corrupt text, including the Western family (characterised by interpolations), and the Alexandrian family {character-ised by omissions) has flowed through channels such as Origen (who denied the deity of Christ) Eusebius, Jerome (who produced the Latin Vulgate), and in the last century, through Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

"Muddy stream"? What a riot! Again, for the umpteenth time, whether or not one stream/family has more corruptions than another is irrelevant. What matters is the ability to learn from the corruptions what the most likely original was. This is easily accomplished.

Interesting also that the writer characterizes the Alexandrian text family as "characterized by omisisons." Haven't we already learned that the textus receptus is "characterized by additions"? I think we clearly have. Furthermore, we know at what points in the history of these documents the additions were made.

I also enjoy what the KJV-only quack-"scholars" like to do: let's talk about those Church Fathers who had unorthodox beliefs as though this discredits the texts from which they read? It discredits them, not the text! In fact, the African Independent Movement today suffers from a lot of the same early heresies and they are using the Bible just like the rest of us. Does this discredit the text?

The pure stream of the New Testament has flowed to us through the Received Text, which Dr. D. Otis Fuller tells us: "had authority enough to become either in itself, or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church, of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, of the Gallic Church of Southern France, and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ire/and, as we// as the Official Bible of the Greek Church (BYZANTINE TEXT)." The reformers stood firmly by the Received Text, Luther's German Translation and Tyndale's magnificent English Translation were from it. When 47 scholars translated the Authorised Version in 1611, by Divine Providence the Received Text was used.

Yes, many have used those texts which were based upon textus receptus. Does this mean it was a better text or was it simply THE text they had?? We know the KJV is based on the textus receptus and while many use it, it is clearly "characterized by additions."

Manuscript discoveries since 1611 have NOT altered the picture. The number increased to 3791 in 1881, and since then to about 5,000, BUT STILL ABOUT 90% AGREE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT!

Yes, to all but the most ignorant pretend "scholar," they do alter the picture. Who but a quack would make such an ingorant statement? Any new discovery alters the picture. The new manuscript discoveries enable us to determine at what point the additions favored by the textus receptus were created. And while 90% may agree with the textus receptus, this is largely due to the fact that most of what is discovered is from the vast compilations of Byzantine texts! because there were so many! And clearly the Byzantine texts are going to largely agree with those Byzantine texts from which they were copied. So the statistics which round out this silly essay are just as deceptive as the essay itself.

Remember that classic car commercial that said something like "90% of all Subarus ever made are still on the road today"? Well, that was because about 90% of Subarus had been made in the immediately preceding years so of course they were still on the road!

This is just a pathetic article which only ignores much of what we know today about text criticism and manuscript translation. It is a KJV-only attempt at discrediting what the vast majority of scholars agree upon. Or perhaps it is just a nefarious devil-inspired attempt at destroying the Church! Oy vey!

I'd also have to say that probably 99% of scholars working today in American Evangelic Bible colleges and seminaries - and let's include Canada and most of Europe (with the exception of France) - would laugh heartily at this Ecob's article. It is such blatant nonsense throughout. Pick your most favorite Conservative scholars. They would say this is just ridiculous.

Scott 8-)

 

[asb4God]

Website

I just came across a great site.

Check out: KJVonly.org

Check out the article The Unlearned Men: The True Geneology and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism

This article talks about a lot of the names we have been seeing in solo's internet articles. It is very reavealing.

I had been recognizing while interacting with them that they were the works of "unlearned" men and had no basis whatsoever in sound scholarship. Now I see why.

Most of the writers on this site are actually degreed individuals. And they list their profiles/academic credentials. You don't have to wonder who these guys are like the fake-scholars solo keeps quoting articles from.

I highly recommend checking out this site for anyone interested. I am personally not terribly interested in this from more than an amused standpoint, so I won't be spending any real time there. But, hey, it looks to be very iformative.

Enjoy!
Scott 8-)

 

[Free]

oops

 

[Free]

Edited

 

[Free]

Something weird is going on

 

[Free]

Something weird is still going on

 

[Free]

I am not going to sit in a church that uses any other version but the KJV. It worked for our ancestors and it works for me.

This reminds me of a funny little story. On another site that I belong to, someone (with biblical studies training) shared the story of two guys who came to his door espousing KJVOism. Unfortunately, he had to be the bearer of bad news and tell these two guys that Paul didn't write in English, he wrote in Greek. They didn't believe him.

Some say "if it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me," but forget that Paul wrote each book once, in Greek. This leads me to another point: if only the KJV has the gospel, how were people saved prior to compilation of the TR and subsequent KJV translation?


Thanks for the links asb4God. Have you seen James White's discussion of Gail Riplinger's work and the fallout from that? You probably have, but I'll give the link anyway.

http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

 

[Solo]

Re: Hmmm..

This is the last article that solo has pulled off the internet with which I will interact. While it is fun to show quackery for what it is, can you imagine my having to take on every goofball across the internet?? If solo has anything of his own to offer, I'd be glad to respond.

I am a little disappointed that you will not be continuing the delightful expression of quackery that I have come accustomed to as I read your posts. Well maybe when you get over yourself, you can return and read the truth about the AV KJV translation and the errors involved in translating the modern texts. Remember that some goofballs don't recognize themselves as such, but there is always hope that truth will prevail when Jesus becomes more important than scholarship. Until then, Good luck.

 

[Solo]

Re: Hmmm..

This is the last article that solo has pulled off the internet with which I will interact. While it is fun to show quackery for what it is, can you imagine my having to take on every goofball across the internet?? If solo has anything of his own to offer, I'd be glad to respond.

I am a little disappointed that you will not be continuing the delightful expression of quackery that I have come accustomed to as I read your posts. Well maybe when you get over yourself, you can return and read the truth about the AV KJV translation and the errors involved in translating the modern texts. Remember that some goofballs don't recognize themselves as such, but there is always hope that truth will prevail when Jesus becomes more important than scholarship. Until then, Good luck.

 

[Solo]

Re: Hmmm..

This is the last article that solo has pulled off the internet with which I will interact. While it is fun to show quackery for what it is, can you imagine my having to take on every goofball across the internet?? If solo has anything of his own to offer, I'd be glad to respond.

I am a little disappointed that you will not be continuing the delightful expression of quackery that I have come accustomed to as I read your posts. Well maybe when you get over yourself, you can return and read the truth about the AV KJV translation and the errors involved in translating the modern texts. Remember that some goofballs don't recognize themselves as such, but there is always hope that truth will prevail when Jesus becomes more important than scholarship. Until then, Good luck.

 

[Solo]

Re: Hmmm..

The following excerpt is from The N. I. V. INFECTION By Pastor Dewey W. Williams (1995) retreived from http://www.biblebelievers.com/williams_d1.html

The NIV INFECTION

Scripture Comparison

Let's consider some important doctrinal truths that are attacked by the NIV. You should note that most of these omissions are found in the other new versions also, if you want to compare. The NIV even refutes the idea that the Bible is the preserved, inspired, Word of God. Note:

Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalms 12:6-7 (NIV) And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Can you see how the meaning is completely corrupted by this supposed improved "Bible". Dear friend, God has a warning to anyone who would dare change His Word.

Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

You will note, they change book of life to tree of life (what part would we even have in the tree of life?), then they confuse the last part of the verse, by dropping "and" and running the verse together, it is weakened. The warning is weakened. This is what the NIV is all about. It corrupts, omits, weakens and changes God's inspired word. I pray that this study will be used of God to give you a conviction concerning the Word of God. I don't know where anything is improved or fortified in the NIV. Here is a good question. Why would you want to use a single shot 22, when the enemy is using a M-16? Not me! Give me a real rifle and the right ammo for the battle. A. The Deity of Christ is Clearly Attacked.

1. By changing "God" to "He" they remove the fact that Jesus is God. This is done in the NASV also.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) 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.

1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

2. By changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God.
Romans 14:10 (KJV) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14:12 (KJV) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:10 (NIV) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Romans 14:12 (NIV) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

3. They change "Son of God" to "Son of Man", who gave them the right to call Jesus a liar?
John 9:35 (KJV) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

John 9:35 (NIV) Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

4. In Matthew 9:18, Matthew 20:20, and Mark 5:6 "Worshipped" and "Worshipping" is changed to "knelt down". This removes the due respect of our Saviour.
5. Jesus is eternal, He did not have an origin.
Micah 5:2 (KJV) But thou, Bethlehem 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 of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2 (NIV) "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

6. Again, Jesus is eternal, He is the beginning and ending.
Revelation 1:8 (KJV) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:8 (NIV) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

7. The NIV omits the first part of the verse, and leaves out the name Jesus, who is called the Son of God by these devils.
Matthew 8:29 (KJV) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Matthew 8:29 (NIV) "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

8. NIV leaves out Jesus.
Matthew 16:20 (KJV) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Matthew 16:20 (NIV) Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

9. They omit Christ and add man - this is wrong!
John 4:42 (KJV) And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 4:42 (NIV) They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

10. Where did this name for God come from "One" - this is the New Age universal god - "the One".
John 6:69 (KJV) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 6:69 (NIV) We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

11. NIV Omits Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 16:22 (KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

1 Corinthians 16:22 (NIV) If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord !

12. NIV omits by Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9 (NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

13. When did God cease to be wise?
1 Timothy 1:17 (KJV) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Timothy 1:17 (NIV) Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

14. Omits by himself.
Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

15. The NIV attacks the priestly order of Jesus!
Hebrews 7:21 (KJV) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec Hebrews 7:21 (NIV) but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'"

16. The NIV changes Lucifer's name to "morning star."
This shows how insidious the NIV corruption is. Remember that this is one of the blessed titles given to our Lord Jesus in (Revelation 22:16). Here they provide confusion between who Satan is and who Jesus is. One thing is for sure, Satan is not the bright and morning star, but the wicked evil deceptive one, who was called before his fall, "Lucifer".

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14:15 (KJV) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Isaiah 14:15 (NIV) But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

Note: At least 70 times, the NIV omits GOD! * Jesus - 15; Christ - 25; Lord - 16; God - 13.

*Somebody must not like Jesus, Christ, Lord, and God.[/b]

More scripture comparisons between the KJV and NIV exist in the entire article at http://www.biblebelievers.com/williams_d1.html

The article ends with the following information:

Two Lines of Battle

We have today many new revised Bibles on the market which differ from our beloved King James 1611 authorized Bible. Beginning with the Westcott-Hort resurrection of the old Roman Catholic / Alexander, a manuscript back in the 1880's, we continue to see new revised versions on the market, but these are not revisions of the received text, but rather resurrections of a faulty Greek text that began with Origen and has been protected and promoted by the church of Rome. It is no wonder why many ministries who are so soft on Roman Catholicism are soft on this Bible issue. We want to go back and trace the "Two Lines of Battle" and you must, as a believer, get on one side or the other. You must decide on what Joshua said, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I make no claims of being a Greek scholar, yet before you disregard this important issue, at least study it out, determine for yourself if we can believe the Bible is God's Word. Now it can not be both ways, if the Catholic, New Age centered, modernist Bible is true; then we should disregard our King James Bible, which came from the received text. But if the King James Bible is the Word of God then the other versions that deny the virgin birth, sinless life, blood atonement, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of our Lord; are wrong and a work of the enemy.

I. The Forming of These Two Battle Lines.
A. The true scriptures, where did they come from?
How did we arrive at the canon of scriptures? Five general tests were used for this:

1. Authorship, who wrote them.

2. Local church acceptance, did the early church read and practice them?

3. Subject matter, what did the book teach? Was it a contradiction of accepted scripture?

4. Personal edification, did the book move the reader to a personal faith in Christ?

5. The most important determination was if the book was verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. we must believe that if God moved to inspire the writers, He also moved to collect and preserve His true Word. All of the New Testament was written in Greek and as soon as the real thing was given, Satan began his work of corrupting God's Word. The men God used to write the New Testament were:

a. Matthew - author of Matthew.

b. Mark - author of Mark.

c. Luke - author of Luke and Acts.

d. John - author of John, 1st, 2nd, 3rd John and Revelation.

e. James - author of James.

f. Jude - author of Jude.

g. Peter - author of 1st and 2nd Peter.

h. Paul - author of the fourteen remaining books.

B. Where did the corruption begin?
1. In the Garden of Eden - (Genesis 3) Satan questions God's Word, denies God's Word, God's Word is added to and Satan changes the Word of God.

2. In the temptation of Jesus, (Matthew 4) we see Satan using the first revised version ever, the S.O.V. (Satan's Own Version). You will remember that Jesus turns back the temptation of Satan by quoting the Word of God. Satan figures he will get involved in the act, so he quotes also; but he likes the NIV, he leaves out part of the verse. (Matthew 4:6) "and saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, he shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou shalt dash thy foot against a stone." Satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12, but he leaves out part of the verse, the part that says, "to keep thee in all thy ways." Satan loves to corrupt God's Word for his own purpose.

3. The school at Alexander Egypt, this was the place where east and west meet together. The Greek Septuagint was translated here around 280 BC This was a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek, yet it has the strong influence of the Alexandrian School. The modernist, Catholic and New Agers still use this for the basis of the new Bibles. We must now look at the primary characters in this Alexandrian movement, because all new translations have their roots here.

a. In 4 BC Askoka, the emperor of India, sent Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. These men were to infiltrate and influence thought of the day.

b. Philo (20 BC- AD 42) He taught that the scriptures held and occult or hidden meaning. He also expressed contempt for the literal truth of God's Word. We must note that both Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort were great followers of Philo. He advocated that all religions be under state control and for this to begin at birth. Philo embraced Gnosticism which was greatly fought by the apostles.

c. Clement of Alexandria. Clement started a school at Alexandria in 200 A.D. which propagandized false doctrines. Clement was a disciple of Titan, who came from Rome to Palestine and embraced Gnostic heresy.

[Note: Gnosticism taught that all matter is evil. They held that another god like being created the world. They called this being a "demiurge" and they associated this being with "Jehovah" of the Old testament. since matter is evil, then the creator of matter must also be evil. This produced a great hatred of Jehovah. No wonder the name Jehovah is stricken from the NIV. The NIV has it's root sin Gnosticism, which is the same as our present, "New Age" movement. Back to Clement.]

Clement mixed Christianity with pagan philosophy. He collected and promoted all the outstanding heretical teachers works.

d. Origen, was the most famous student of Clement. he would do more to set the line for false doctrine than anyone else. Jerome was greatly influenced by him as well as Westcott and Hort. He followed the Gnostic's heresy and Plato's errors and went into new areas of false teaching. Origen taught that the soul existed from eternity and that after death, it migrated to another life form. Sounds like New Age to me. He believed the devils would be saved. Of course, a book could be written on the heresy of Origen.

e. Jerome, was the man that Constantine called upon to translate the Bible into Latin, this would be the Latin Vulgate. In 312 A.D., the Roman emperor embraced the Christian religion, after he saw a cross in the sky. This began the Roman Catholic system and their many errors. Constantine wanted to merge pagan religions and Christianity, so he wanted a Bible that would have the New Age favor. Already, in 251 A.D. the sound, Bible believing churches had withdrawn from the coming Catholic church. These true believers kept and preserved the Word of God. when Jerome sought a Greek text, he chose the Origen, Alexandrian influenced text. The church of Rome has preserved these so called "better manuscripts" and they then produced them so the Bible revision could be possible.

II. The Fight of These Two Battle Lines.
From 312 A.D. until now, this battle has raged. Let's follow these two lines. On one side, the Majority text, also called the Received text. On the other side, the Vaticanus, which came from the Gnostics at Alexandria Egypt.

A. The church of Rome will carry out a war on the textus receptus from day one.
1. A.D. 416 - established infant baptism.

2. A.D. 451 - adopted mariolatry.

3. A.D. 680 - sixth council meet to condemn heresy, or to condemn Bible Believing churches.

4. A.D. 787 - image worship.

5. A.D. 869 - split Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic, with Rome now teaching; no salvation aside from the church, the sale of indulgences, and purgatory.

6. A.D. 1123 - celibacy of priest.

7. A.D. 1215 - transubstantiation, which teaches that the priest has the power to change the host (communion wafer) to the Holy Eucharist (which is the very body, blood and divinity of Christ).

8. A.D. 1229 - forbidden to have or read the Bible.

9. All through these years, we have what is called the dark ages, produced by a monster who is out of control, the Harlot of (Revelation 17). When the Bible reaches the hands of the people, then the dark age gives way to the reformation.

B. We see God preserving His Word during the Dark Ages.
1. The early Syrian Church at Antioch, where the Bible was translated into Syrian about 150 A.D. They used the received text.

2. The Waldenses in Northern Italy, these great believers were hated and butchered by the Roman Catholic system, yet they managed to preserve their Bible, which follows the received text. The Italian (Itala) was preferred by Augustine, which came from the Waldenses.

3. The Gallic Christian in early France, were massacred by the heathen in A.D. 177, yet they sent the records, not to Rome, but to Asia Minor. These gallant believers carried the Gospel to England and Europe. They had the true Word of God from the received text, which the King James was translated from. in the fourth century, Helvious, who was a Waldensian scholar, accused Jerome of using a corrupt Greek manuscript. If there had not been true text at that time, how could these charges have been made? Three famous church fathers, Augustine, Jerome, and Amibrose were accused of uniting together to promote a corrupt Bible that has been promoted by the Roman church ever since. The Waldensian made the way for Luther and the Reformation. The translators of our beloved king James translation, referred to an Italian translation produced by the Waldensian scholar, Giovanni Diodati.

III. The Furtherance of These Two Lines.
A. The Alexandrian text is the foundation for the great whore of Revelation 17 & 18.
1. The Papacy promoted this corrupt bible to hold their people in darkness, this was called the Dark Ages (476 A.D. to 1453 A.D.) and then the reformation began.

2. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome became the book of the Catholic clergy for over one thousand years. Just until recently, they did the mass in Latin, a dead language.

B. The received text is the foundation for the reformation. Let's trace the reformation.
1. Wycliff - translated the Bible in English 200 years before the birth of Luther. He used the Vulgate and it contains many errors. The reformation lingered for over 200 years. Wycliff is called the morning star of the reformation.

2. Erasmus, was the great scholar produced by the revival in knowledge that followed the Dark Ages. This man traveled Europe and studied the Greek manuscripts. This beloved scholar produced the Greek New Testament, printed in 1516. Erasmus held a conviction that God only wrote one Bible. Erasmus is hated by those who hate the received text.

3. Tyndale, William Tyndale translated the Greek Bible of Erasmus into English. The great quote of Tyndale is, "if God spare my life, err many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." He was burned at the stake but not before he had set England on the path of being the world leader of spiritual blessing.

4. Martin Luther - born November 10, 1483 in Eislenben Germany. He was ordained in 1507 in the Augustinian order. He was greatly disturbed by the abuses, corruption and luxury of the Roman Church. It was when Luther was crawling up the "judgment steps" that God's Spirit spoke to him, "the just shall live by faith"! The cry of the reformation was "sola fide" or justification by faith, and "sola scripture", only the scriptures for authority of faith and practice. On October 31, 1517, Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle church in Wittenbery. In 1520, he was excommunicated by Leo X, this led to a public debate called "the diet at worms". Here Luther refused to recant unless convinced by the scriptures. Luther said he would stand alone on God's Word. Luther translated the Bible into German and he used the received text for his translation.

C. Rome's reaction - lets consider how Rome moved to counteract the reformation.
1. Ignatius Loyola, who founded the Jesuit Order in 1521 A.D. This man was a Spaniard who was a soldier fighting to drive the Mohammedans out of Spain. He was wounded and so he turned his energy to the church. The Jesuits were founded to be the order that would strive to capture the centers of learning and to oppose Bible believing Christianity. These priests were required to take an oath of blind obedience to the church. They are taught to use any method available to complete their task. the Jesuits guided both the inquisition and the index. The inquisition had originated in the thirteenth century to combat the Albigenses. Only God knows how many hundreds of thousands died slow tortured deaths by the means of the inquisition. The "index" was the banned list of books that faithful were prohibited from reading. We must note that the Greek text given by Erasmus, which our King James 1611, was translated from, was on this index. I, for one, would have made sure I read anything on the index of Rome.

2. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) a. This council was dominated by the Jesuits. b. This council made four condemnations.

Condemned the idea that the scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation.
Condemned the rejection of the apocryphal books as being part of the Cannon of scriptures.
Condemned the study of the scriptures in the original languages. Condemned the teaching that there were errors in the Vulgate (this was the Latin Bible produced by Jerome).
Condemned the idea that the scriptures were plain and that they could be understood without commentary, with only the help of the Holy Spirit. Beloved, and organization that hates the Bible this much, how could we find ourselves using a Bible produced and preserved by this harlot religious system that has taken untold millions to Hell down through the years.
3. The Jesuit Bible of 1582 - remember that Tyndale's version had won great acceptance in England. The Tyndale version was from the Received text, the same that the King James would be translated from. The church of Rome brought the Jesuit bible of 1582 to try to dissolve the moving of God in England. The Jesuit Bible intended to do on the inside what the great Navy of Philip II, was to do on the outside. The one moral attack, the other a physical attack. God raised up the great Puritan scholar, Thomas Cartwright to dismantle this corrupt Jesuit Bible, it was soundly rejected by all. Meanwhile, 136 Spanish galleons were sailing up the English Channel to retake England for the Pope. England with only 30 man-of-war ships and harbor tugs, sailed against this greatest navy ever assembled up unto this time. God granted a great victory and the Armada was crushed. This enabled England to become a sea power and also to become the first great mission sending nation in the world. This is why I love history, you cannot miss seeing the Hand of God. This great victory paved the way for King James, who had succeeded Elizabeth, to authorize the production of the king James 1611 version, called, "The Miracle of English Prose".

IV. The Fabulous King James Translation
A. Translations leading up to the King James.
1. Bede (674-735) translated part of the scriptures in the old English.

2. John Wycliffe (1320-1384) first man to completely translate the Bible into English, the sad note is that he used the Latin Vulgate of Jerome for this work.

3. William Tyndale, Tyndale's version (1525) his work was based on Erasmus' Greek text. He also used Luther's translation. This Bible was used mighty of God in England. Tyndale was martyred in 1536.

4. Miles Coverdale, Coverdale version (1535), was the first Bible printed in England.

5. John Rogers, Matthew's version (1537). Rogers used the name Thomas Matthew, to conceal his friendship to Tyndale. He was burned at the stake by the Catholic church, bloody Mary, in 1555.

6. The Great Bible, (1539), this work was authorized by Henry VIII, because of the controversial footnotes in the Tyndale and Coverdale translations. Due to its size it was called the Great Bible and because of it's worth it was chained to a reading post within the church.

7. The Geneva Version (1557), translated by William Whitting-ham in Geneva. It was the first version to divide the text into verses. It omitted the Apocrypha. It was the Bible of Shakespeare and John Bunyan, and it was carried by the Pilgrims to America in 1620.

8. The Rheims - Douay Bible (1582) was the Bible of the Jesuits, to try to win England back to Rome. This was the NIV, RSV, NASV, etc. of that day.

B. The King James Translation.
1. The Mandate began July 22, 1604. King James appointed 54 men to translate an authorized version.

2. The Men - the translators were the greatest scholars alive and their credentials are very impressive. In the book Which Bible, Terence H. Brown lists 47 of the 54 appointed by the King. Let us never forget that the translation of Westcott and Hort in 1870 was a closed door affair, where the corrupt Greek text was placed above the received text. Also, never forget that every "new" translation has followed Westcott and Hort in their modernist, new age teachings.

3. The Method - the translators were organized into six groups, two meeting at Westminister, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. Each scholar made his own translation, then passed it on to each member of his group, and after they had completed their assigned section, it was passed to all other groups. Thus it went through the hands of each of the translators.

4. The Manuscript - what did this cast of great, brilliant scholars choose for their Greek text? The Received text, along with the majority group. We must understand that nearly all of the old manuscripts agree; it is only a very few Greek manuscripts that line up with the RSV, NASV, NIV etc.

5. The Miracle, the King James 1611 authorized version became the greatest Bible ever translated. It has been behind every great revival in History. The Wesley's, Whitfield's, and Spurgeon's all used this Bible with great success. In America, it produced the Great Awakening, under Jonathan Edwards, and the camp meeting movement. God's hand was on this work as no other Bible ever translated. Is there any question as to why Satan hates the King James 1611 Version? The Devil doesn't want people to have a Bible they can believe is without error.

V. Faulty Revision of 1870.
A. The Mandate - some wanted the old words updated and some minor changes. What they got was a subversive, false, Bible that would be the foundation of "textual criticism" which would lead to the self destruction of all the great denominations who used to be committed to the evangelism of the unsaved and the purity of God's people.

B. The Manuscripts - they used the faulty Alexandrian Greek text preserved by the church of Rome. The two main text used were the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

1. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844 at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai by the German (higher critic) Tischendorf. This text was in a waste basket waiting to be burned. Dean Burgon, great scholar of Oxford, in the 1840's. points out the fact that if these manuscripts had been considered useful to the early church, then they would have been both worn out and recopied for further study.

2. The Codex Vaticanus - believed to have written around 330 A.D. It is funny that this text was not worn out by those early Christians, if this was the real thing. The Vaticanus was kept in the Vatican Library in Rome since 1481. It is not a complete Greek Text, missing are Philemon, Revelation and part of Hebrews. This is not counting the hundreds of changes from the Received Text. The Vatican conveniently allowed it to be used by Westcott and Hort in 1870 to complete this corruption of God's true Word.

C. The Men of This Faulty Bible - the Bible says in (Romans 11:16) "For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy, so are the branches,". We could ask this question, what if the root is evil, doesn't that make the product of the branches evil and bad? This is the clear case of the two men most responsible for all the new Bible versions. When comparing the translators of the King James with the stooges who translated the Revised Version English (1881-1885), it is like comparing brain surgeons to podiatrists (foot doctors). I have never read anything good about Westcott and Hort, a whole book could easily be written to expose these men as rank liberals, extreme modernist, active new agers, and even satanic spiritualist. Both of these men were involved in Mary worship and they were disciples of Clement, Origen, and the like. In G. A. Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, the author provides mountains of documentation confirming that the root truly is evil. How strange it is tome that good Bible believing people would defend and follow these ungodly Apostate teachers. Never forget that the omissions and changes in all the new versions, did not happen by chance, but they have been planned and accomplished by the enemy of all men, Satan himself. Let's look briefly at the new revised translation and paraphrase.

1. Dr. Westcott, hated evangelicals and called them perverted. He was fascinated with Darwinism and practiced kneeling before an image of Mary, and believed in Mariolatry, and the mass. This man was an Anglican priest who was involved in the modern channeling movement. He founded the ghostly club or ghostly guild in the 1850's. This is Satanic and ungodly, yet this man is followed instead of the King James Bible.

2. Dr. Hort, also an Anglican priest who was a Roman Catholic stooge. He also was a rank liberal, a true modernist, and a new ager.

3. J. B. Phillips - who translated "The New Testament in Modern English", and "Phillips Translation". This man was involved in Necromancy (the communing with spirits). On several occasions after the death of C. S. Lewis, the supposed spirit of Lewis appeared to Phillips with a new age message, "I'm O.K., you're O.K., don't worry, be happy". Phillips was stricken with the inability to speak, write, or communicate in the summer of 1861. This has happened to several Bible revisers.

4. Kenneth Taylor, the Living Bible Paraphrase. This work follows Westcott and Hort with many ungodly liberties taken. Taylor even translated profanity into this funny book called by some a Bible. (1 Samuel 20:30) "You son of a __________! he yelled at him". Time magazine, July 24, 1972 "mysteriously half way through the paraphrase, Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper." It is a dangerous thing to toy with God's blessed Word.

5. Philip Schaff - American Standard Version. Schaff was another rank liberal, modernist, and heavily involved in New Age teachings. The New American Standard Version and Living Bible, followed the work of Schaff. This infidel made over 30,000 changes from the King James in his revised Bible. He gathered a cast of fellow Bible haters and modernist to translate these new Bible versions. He even had a Unitarian layman active in this work. Schaff was the ringleader of the New Age gathering called, "The Parliament of World Religions". They brought the eastern religions and so called Protestants together with the message, "All in one. Man is Divine". This began the modernist movement in America back in the late 1800's.

6. Edwin H. Palmer - he served as the executive secretary of the NIV committee on Bible translation and as coordinator of all translation work on the NIV. He died on September 16, 1980, but not before he had laid the ground work for the NIV. Mr. Palmer was a liberal who questioned nearly every major doctrine. Palmer was the one who selected the cast of translators who produced the NIV.

7. Ronald Youngblood, quoted as saying, "The Bible is the words of men." How can a modernist be trusted to tell us what God's Word is?

8. Burton Goddard, quoted as saying, "There are mistakes in transmission" (the Bible is not trust worthy).

9. Dr. Frank Logsdon - who lead the translation of the New American Standard Version. He now renounces the work he did in the NASV and said "I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord." He now concludes that a faulty Greek manuscript was used in the new versions. He now believes that the KJV is absolutely correct.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/williams_d1.html

 

[asb4God]

Re: Hmmm..

I am a little disappointed that you will not be continuing the delightful expression of quackery that I have come accustomed to as I read your posts.

What parts of what I have written do you disagree with? And I do mean YOU, not one of these quacks you keep pulling out. By the way, I am referring to these fake "scholars" when I say "quacks," not you.

Well maybe when you get over yourself, you can return and read the truth about the AV KJV translation and the errors involved in translating the modern texts.

Ok, I'm over myself....I still see faulty "scholarship" and unjustified claims on the part of KJV devotees. I have read ALL that you have offered and see zero reason to believe modern texts are translated incorrectly. Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely on internet goofballs as I can do the work myself. This doesn't make me any better than dirt, it just means I am trained in this very task and so I have that to offer the Church.

Remember that some goofballs don't recognize themselves as such,

I fully agree. All of the people named in Dr. Wallace's article think they really know what they're talking about, but the article makes clear that they are all basically using one or two guys' arguments and retreading them over and over again. There is ZERO original scholarship being done by these guys. They are stuck in the past and are entirely unable to deal with the latest scholarship, which I think is evidenced by the fact that you haven't produced anything which demonstrates that recent scholarship is showing something favorable for the KJV. In fact, the landslide of scholarship moves us away from the KJV as the most accurate translation.

but there is always hope that truth will prevail when Jesus becomes more important than scholarship.

Jesus is vastly more important than scholarship. This is the primary reason scholarship exists! Do you see this? Anti-intellectualism seeks to deny the role of scholarship in worship principally because scholarship always forces us to rethink our positions and for some that is very uncomfortable. It is always easier to close our eyes and ears and just hold onto what we have always held onto.

But scholarship takes us down the road of understanding the Scripture better and, hence, Jesus and His Kingdom better.

Until then, Good luck.

Thanks, but I don't believe in luck. I believe in the providential and sovereign power of God to work His will among us.

Scott 8-)

 

[asb4God]

Solo,

Thanks for yet another cut and paste job. Please, offer something worthwhile, eh? It becomes increasingly laughable that you offer the same argument again and again even after it is proved to be from the pen of those who are heinously ignorant.

You are starting to look like a "flat-earth" proponent here.

If you say you do actually believe in a flat-earth, the equivalent of saying the NIV incorrectly omits Scripture, I will have to ritually cleanse myself from having read such a thing.

Thanks for understanding,

Scott 8-)

 

[Solo]

Solo,

Thanks for yet another cut and paste job. Please, offer something worthwhile, eh? It becomes increasingly laughable that you offer the same argument again and again even after it is proved to be from the pen of those who are heinously ignorant.

You are starting to look like a "flat-earth" proponent here.

If you say you do actually believe in a flat-earth, the equivalent of saying the NIV incorrectly omits Scripture, I will have to ritually cleanse myself from having read such a thing.

Thanks for understanding,

Scott 8-)

The more you ridicule and disrespect the scholarship that shows your position as false, the more laughable you become. I may have fallen for your facade of intellectual abilities if it hadn't been from my experience with those of your caliber in the past.

Please do not read any more of my posts as they relate to this topic, for I don't want you to fall from your roost, and inadvertantly discover your false understanding of the scriptures.

I do want to thank you though for allowing me to investigate more fully into the truthfulness of the KJV over the modern translations. I will continue to praise God for his exceptional plan to maintain his word throughout the generations, first from the original manuscripts which were infallible to the future translations of Christian men bent on translating verbatum the true word of God. It is not very difficult to see how the devil has worked to attempt to bring doubt on the word of God as he did in the garden of eden.

I truly hope that the Holy Spirit can bring truth into your life without deception and lies of the devil.
Good luck.

 

[asb4God]

The more you ridicule and disrespect the scholarship that shows your position as false, the more laughable you become.

What "scholarship" has shown my position false? I have yet to see any "scholarship" from these KJVers. Really, I know what scholarship is as I've sat at their feet, read their works and have been challenged to think critically enough to question even their own findings. Have you ever been in this situation? From your insistence on accepting the findings of quacks, it appears that you have never been forced to think critically about these issuesn - and I'm not speaking of mere knowledge here, but the analysis of arguments. Really, I am interested in knowing if you have any education in your background because it doesn't appear that you have had to deal before with scholarly debate of this type. That isn't a slight, though you might feel it is. It is an honest question trying to understand why you believe what you believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I may have fallen for your facade of intellectual abilities if it hadn't been from my experience with those of your caliber in the past.

So, you're saying I have no intellectual abilities? Is that what you're saying? Because it's ok if that's what you're saying, but I'm just wondering. : I can take any slight which is untrue, of course. What injury is done to me when the injury is false?

Please do not read any more of my posts as they relate to this topic, for I don't want you to fall from your roost, and inadvertantly discover your false understanding of the scriptures.

I do appreciate your concern for my safety. : But I think there is little chance that I might discover the falsity of my understanding of Scripture because I have in my camp the entirety of conservative Evangelical scholarship. I can live with that.

I will continue to praise God for his exceptional plan to maintain his word throughout the generations, first from the original manuscripts which were infallible to the future translations of Christian men bent on translating verbatum the true word of God. It is not very difficult to see how the devil has worked to attempt to bring doubt on the word of God as he did in the garden of eden.

I fully agree. God has maintained the integrity of the Scriptures - in all of its translations - and the devil does, indeed, seek to bring doubt on the Word of God.

I truly hope that the Holy Spirit can bring truth into your life without deception and lies of the devil.

Holy Spirit bringing truth into my life without deception and lies of the devil...check.
Holy Spirit giving me a sound mind and the keen ability to discern truth from fiction...check.
Holy Spirit enabling me to understand complex issues without leading to cognitive dissonance and intellectual/emotional stress...check.

Blessings,
Scott 8-)

 

[cuiq]

I don't know if anyone picked up this verse, but it is definitely one that made me stick with the KJV

Galations 3:22

KJV
"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

NIV
"But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

I don't know about you but "faith of Jesus Christ" is quite different than "faith in Jesus Christ"



peace V

 

[Solo]

The more you ridicule and disrespect the scholarship that shows your position as false, the more laughable you become.

What "scholarship" has shown my position false? I have yet to see any "scholarship" from these KJVers. Really, I know what scholarship is as I've sat at their feet, read their works and have been challenged to think critically enough to question even their own findings. Have you ever been in this situation? From your insistence on accepting the findings of quacks, it appears that you have never been forced to think critically about these issuesn - and I'm not speaking of mere knowledge here, but the analysis of arguments. Really, I am interested in knowing if you have any education in your background because it doesn't appear that you have had to deal before with scholarly debate of this type. That isn't a slight, though you might feel it is. It is an honest question trying to understand why you believe what you believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I may have fallen for your facade of intellectual abilities if it hadn't been from my experience with those of your caliber in the past.

So, you're saying I have no intellectual abilities? Is that what you're saying? Because it's ok if that's what you're saying, but I'm just wondering. : I can take any slight which is untrue, of course. What injury is done to me when the injury is false?

Please do not read any more of my posts as they relate to this topic, for I don't want you to fall from your roost, and inadvertantly discover your false understanding of the scriptures.

I do appreciate your concern for my safety. : But I think there is little chance that I might discover the falsity of my understanding of Scripture because I have in my camp the entirety of conservative Evangelical scholarship. I can live with that.

I will continue to praise God for his exceptional plan to maintain his word throughout the generations, first from the original manuscripts which were infallible to the future translations of Christian men bent on translating verbatum the true word of God. It is not very difficult to see how the devil has worked to attempt to bring doubt on the word of God as he did in the garden of eden.

I fully agree. God has maintained the integrity of the Scriptures - in all of its translations - and the devil does, indeed, seek to bring doubt on the Word of God.

I truly hope that the Holy Spirit can bring truth into your life without deception and lies of the devil.

Holy Spirit bringing truth into my life without deception and lies of the devil...check.
Holy Spirit giving me a sound mind and the keen ability to discern truth from fiction...check.
Holy Spirit enabling me to understand complex issues without leading to cognitive dissonance and intellectual/emotional stress...check.

Blessings,
Scott 8-)

More untruths and sarcasm. You are batting about 1000.
Keep up the good work. Good luck.