The King James Version.....Defended

[BibleJunky]

Hi Gents,

I saw this on a site... and I thought you'd be interested in reading it.

taken from here...:

http://nw-baptist.com/timothy4.html

Warning this maybe a bit long.... sorry...

The Bible of the Early Church Fathers

Introduction

In the late nineteenth century the long established credibility of the Authorized Version of the Bible was attacked. To make this attack on God’s Word, Dr. Hort claimed that Chrysostom who died in 407 was the first Church Father to characteristically use what has come to be known as the Received Text, the Greek source of the Authorized Version. He further claimed that the readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found prior to about A.D. 350! From this untenable proposition he theorized that any manuscript older than A.D. 350 would be both older and more reliable than the Received Text. This serves to answer why he favored every reading of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts which differed with the Received Text.

Upon this one proposition Hort’s whole argument is based and all his conclusions are drawn. In light of his claim, we would presume that the writings of the early church fathers would use manuscripts similar to the Alexandrian text. If, on the other hand, the readings peculiar to the Received Text are found to have been preferred during the first centuries, then the Westcott and Hort theory is nothing but lies, and the current attacks on our King James Bible are clearly part of a great heresy.

Hypothesis

This paper seeks to examine what early church leaders had to say about the actual text of the New Testament. We are especially interested in what kind of text they quoted from in their numerous writings. Do they bear witness to the text variously referred to as Byzantine, Syrian, Majority, Traditional or Received? Or do these early Fathers quote from a small minority of conflicting manuscripts known as Alexandrian, Western, Neutral, etc., i.e. the kind of manuscripts which Drs. Westcott and Hort used over a hundred years ago to build their "revised" Greek New Testament? This Greek New Testament with its shift away from the received text has been the basis of nearly all 20th century translation.

A Survey of Leading Church Fathers

Polycarp (A.D. 69-155)

For many years he was the pastor of the church of Smyrna in Asia Minor. Irenaeus (130_200) states that he was a disciple of the Apostle John. In writing to the Philippian church (115), he makes about fifty clear quotations from many of the N.T. books. Of those quotations four are of passages which are contested between the two schools of thought. Of those four passages quoted all agree with the Received Text, and all disagree with the text arrived at by Westcott and Hort. He said, "Whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord, that one is the firstborn of Satan."

Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians

There are four places in this Epistle where Polycarp uses quotes from his copy of the sacred Scriptures which happen to be passages which are under debate between the two schools of thought concerning the conflict between the Authorized Version, 1611, and those versions coming essentially from the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, 1881.

Case 1 - Matthew 7:2

Polycarp: "The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." Chapter II, "An Exhortation to Virtue." Paragraph 1, reference to Matthew 7:2, which is translated as, "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Italics are mine.)

In the Authorized Version (AV) of Matthew 7:2 it says, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Italics are mine.) In the New International Version (NIV) Matthew 7:2 says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Notice that the word ‘again’ is missing.

Going to the Greek for the reason, the Received Text or Textus Receptus (TR) renders the verse: evn w-| ga.r kri,mati kri,nete kriqh,sesqe kai. evn w-| me,trw| metrei/te avntimetrhqh,setai u`mi/n. Whereas the Greek of Westcott and Hort renders the verse: evn w-| ga.r kri,mati kri,nete kriqh,sesqe\ kai. evn w-| me,trw| metrei/te( metrhqh,setai u`mi/nÃ… The difference is in the second to the last word in the verses. The received text uses the word avntimetrhqh,setai which means to repay or give back a measure. The words "it will be measured ... again," represent this definition. Westcott and Hort use the word metrhqh,somai which means to measure out, apportion out, or give out. The words in the Westcott and Hort rendition "it will be measured" represent this definition.

Clearly Polycarp who authored this post-cannon epistle did not have the error of the later corrupted texts to use as his source of Scripture. He used a text consistent with the received text of Erasmus.

Case 2 - Romans 14:10

Polycarp: "The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." Chapter VI, "The Duties of Presbyters and others." Paragraph 1, reference to Romans 14:10, the last phrase of which is translated, "we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ."

In the Authorized version Romans 14:10 says, "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." (Italics are mine.)

Whereas in the NIV Romans 14:10 says, "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." (Italics are mine.)

Again, going to the Greek for the reason, the received text renders the verse: Romans 14:10 su. de. ti, kri,neij to.n avdelfo,n sou h' kai. su. ti, evxouqenei/j to.n avdelfo,n sou pa,ntej ga.r parasthso,meqa tw/| bh,mati tou/ Cristou/Å The last word being the word for "of Christ." In the Westcott and Hort Greek Romans 14:10 is rendered, su. de. ti, kri,neij to.n avdelfo,n souÈ h' kai. su. ti, evxouqenei/j to.n avdelfo,n souÈ pa,ntej ga.r parasthso,meqa tw/| bh,mati tou/ qeou/. The last word is the word for the possessive, "God’s."

Polycarp was reading the same Scriptures in the early 2nd century which we have today preserved in the Authorized Version of 1611. The later (4th century) corrupted manuscripts from which Wescott and Hort draw their errors were not the Bible of Polycarp.

Case 3 - 1 John 4:3

Polycarp: "The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." Chapter VII, "Persevere in Fasting and Prayer." Paragraph 1, reference to 1 John 4:3, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist." (Italics are mine.)

The Authorized Version gives 1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist." The NIV renders 1 John 4:3 "But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist."

Again the problem between the two versions lays in the Greek. The received text has the name VIhsou/n Cristo.n (Jesus Christ), whereas the corrupted manuscripts from which the new versions are drawn gives the name Vihsou/n (Jesus) only.

Polycarp’s copy of the First Epistle of John was certainly acquired first-hand from the Apostle, himself, as John discipled Polycarp. But the fact that is most comforting is that the words found in Polycarp’s Epistle are the same as we have today in the Authorized, 1611, King James Bible.

Case 4 - Ephesians 4:26

Polycarp: "The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians." Chapter XII, "Exhortation to Various Graces." Paragraph 1, reference to Ephesians 4:26 "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Italics are mine.)

In the Authorized Version Ephesians 4:26 says, "let not the sun go down upon your wrath:" whereas in the NIV Ephesians 4:26 says, "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry."

The difference is found in the inclusion of the definite article (tw/|) before the word for wrath (parorgismw`) in the received text: ovrgi,zesqe kai. mh. a`marta,nete\ o` h[lioj mh. evpidue,tw evpi. tw/| parorgismw/| u`mw/n, as opposed to the article being missing in the corrupted text of Westcott and Hort ovrgi,zesqe kai. mh. a`marta,nete\ o` h[lioj mh. evpidue,tw evpi. parorgismw/| u`mw/n. The article places emphasis upon the word for wrath, making it, "wrath," the object of the sentence, rather than the phrase "while you are still angry."

Again it is shown that the received text, Textus Receptus, of Erasmus, from which the Authorized, King James Bible is drawn, is consistent with the text being used in the beginning of the second century by Polycarp.

Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200)

He was a western Father, born in Asia Minor, and in his youth was a disciple of the aged Polycarp. He labored for some years in Lyons (Gaul) and because its bishop in 177. He accused heretics of corrupting the Scriptures. His major work Against Heretics (c. 185) is about equal in volume to the writings of all the preceding church Fathers put together. He quotes the last twelve verses of Mark. He quotes from every N.T. book except Philemon and III John. Thus the dimensions of the New Testament canon recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today. Irenaeus said, "The doctrines of the apostles had been handed down by the succession of bishops being guarded and preserved, without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither additions nor curtailment." He demonstrates his concern for the accuracy of the text by defending the traditional reading of a single letter. The question is whether John wrote 666 or 616 in Rev. 13:18. Irenaeus asserts that 666 is found "in all the most approved and ancient copies" and that "those men who saw John face to face" bear witness to it. And he warns "there shall be no light punishment upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scriptures." Considering Polycarp's friendship with John, his personal copy of Revelation would probably have been taken from the Autograph. And considering Irenaeus' veneration for Polycarp, his personal copy was probably taken from Polycarp's. Since 1881, the word "vinegar" in Mt. 27:34 has been despised as a "late Byzantine" reading. There are seven early witnesses against it. Irenaeus is one of the eighteen witnesses for it. Contrary to Hort's view, Miller found that Irenaeus sided with the TR 63 times and with the WH 41 times.

Case 1 - Matthew 5:27

Irenaeus, p477, quotes Matthew 5:27, "It has been said to them of old time," (Italics are mine).

The Authorized Version, 1611 gives Matthew 5:27 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:" (Italics are mine). In the NIV Matthew 5:27 is given as, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' The words "of old time" are not used.

In the Greek texts the reason for this difference is soon discovered. The TR, VHkou,sate o[ti evrre,qh toi/j avrcai,oij( Ouv moiceu,seij, has the words "toi/j avrcai,oij" which mean of old time. Whereas the Westcott and Hort text are missing those words: example, VHkou,sate o[ti evrre,qh( Ouv moiceu,seijÃ….

Irenaeus is quoting the Scriptures from the same source that we have today, the reliable Word of God, the received text, the same family of manuscripts from which we receive the King James Bible, the TR.

Case 2 - John 1:18

Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 6. For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only_begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]."

This passage is a quote from John 1:18. It is in full agreement with the Authorized Version 1611, which says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The NIV gives this passage as, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

The reason for the difference is found in the underlying texts of these two versions. The TR renders the Greek as, "qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,sato." Whereas the Greek decided upon by Westcott and Hort is rendered, "Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ monogenh.j qeo.j o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j evkei/noj evxhgh,sato." The seventh word in the TR is the word ui`o,j, for son, whereas the Westcott and Hort Greek has the word qeo.j, translated God.

Irenaeus had a copy of the Gospel of John which he probably received or copied from Polycarp, who discipled him, and Polycarp most certainly received his copy directly from the human author of the gospel, the Apostle John, who had discipled Polycarp. It seems obvious that if anyone in the second century had a true copy of that gospel, it would be Irenaeus.

Tertullian (145-220), a contemporary of Irenaeus, in his defense against heresies of the faith also quotes this verse with the Son of God being the One who knew Him. Hippolytus (170-236) also quotes this passage as being the Son who was in the bosom of the Father and declared Him. Origen (185-254), a youngster at the time of the death of Irenaeus and anything but a friend to our receiving the inerrant Word of God today, quotes this verse using, again, the received text reading of Son. Gregory (205-265) also quoted it with Son.

Case 3 - John 8:59

From the "Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus," page 576, referring to John 8:59 Irenaeus writes, "so again did He pass through the midst of those who sought to injure Him."

In the Authorized, 1611, King James Version John 8:59 reads, "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." The reading of the NIV in John 8:59 is, "At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Comparing the Greek texts, the TR renders John 8:59 h=ran ou=n li,qouj i[na ba,lwsin evp auvto,n\ VIhsou/j de. evkru,bh kai. evxh/lqen evk tou/ i`erou/ dielqw.n dia. me,sou auvtw/n\ kai. parh/gen ou[twjÃ… and the Westcott and Hort Greek renders John 8:59 h=ran ou=n li,qouj i[na ba,lwsin evpV auvto,n\ VIhsou/j de. evkru,bh( kai. evxh/lqen evk tou/ i`erou/( The additional words of the Received Text (dielqw.n dia. me,sou auvtw/n\ kai. parh/gen ou[twjÃ…) have the meaning "Went through the midst of them and passed by."

It is apparent that the text of Irenaeus again contained words which are peculiar to the TR which was according to Westcott and Hort not even dreamed of for another two hundred years. It is true that Irenaeus had the true text of the Bible given him by Polycarp, the Apostle John’s disciple. And we know that the Apostle John had the true autograph copy of the book of John, for he was its author. We can with equal assurance proclaim that the Received Text is the very Word of God.

Case 4 - Acts 3:6

Irenaeus in the book on Heresies, page 430, quotes Acts 3:6 as "Silver and gold I have none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." (Italics mine) The Authorized, 1611, King James Version reads Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." And the NIV quotes Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." Comparing the Greek, the Received Text Acts 3:6 ei=pen de. Pe,troj VArgu,rion kai. crusi,on ouvc u`pa,rcei moi o] de. e;cw tou/to, soi di,dwmi\ evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ Cristou/ tou/ Nazwrai,ou evgei/rai kai. peripa,tei And the Westcott and Hort Greek for Acts 3:6 reads ei=pen de. Pe,troj( VArgu,rion kai. crusi,on ouvc u`pa,rcei moi\ o] de. e;cw( tou/to, soi di,dwmiÃ… evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ Cristou/ tou/ Nazwrai,ou peripa,teiÃ… The difference between the two is the word evgei/rai which means rise up.

Irenaeus has a reasonably new copy of the book of Acts authored by Luke in his possession and it agrees totally with what I have for my Bible, nearly two thousand years later: the Authorized, 1611, King James Bible!!!

Thoughts?

BibleJunky

 

[Orthodox Christian]

My thoughts are: It is fascinating seeing a Baptist use Church Fathers to defend doctrine, and to see this same Baptist stump for the Recived Text (ie, the text that was safeguarded by the 'fallen' Church.

I think the points of distinction with the NIV are of relatively minimal impact- even though I am a proponent of received text.

I believe that if Church Fathers can be employed to defend received text, they can be employed to defend received tradition.

There's my $.02
James

 

[Blazin Bones]

Frankly I'd rather see them defend defend Christ and the Bible before defending a translation.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Frankly I'd rather see them defend defend Christ and the Bible before defending a translation.

Oh, I quite understand and agree- except it very well may be that defending a translation or a doctrine may be, in the mind of the defendor- synomous with defending Christ and/or the bible.

For inasmuch as a mistranslation or a bad doctrine misrepresent Christ or scripture, they attack either/or/both.

 

[BibleJunky]

I believe that if Church Fathers can be employed to defend received text, they can be employed to defend received tradition.

There's my $.02
James

and to that.... I give you the following:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eastern-orthodox-ch/eastern-orthodox-ch.html


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eastern.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/orthodoxy.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns85.html

EASTERN ORTHODOX

That branch of sacramental Christianity which broke off from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D.

HISTORY: Until 1054 the Eastern and the Roman were two branches of the same sacramental body. The division began when the Roman emperor Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330 A.D. Powerful church leaders claimed authority over large regions and were vying for supremacy. There was the bishop of Rome in the West, and four patriarchs in the East. The main point of contention between the eastern and the western divisions was the papacy. More important than doctrine was the issue of power and authority. The Eastern Orthodox rejected the pope, while retaining Rome’s sacramental system and most of Rome’s unscriptural doctrines.

“The division of the Orthodox Church into the Western and Eastern--Roman and Constantinople--began with the division of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century A.D. Toward the end of the 9th century the dialogue between the Papacy and the Patriarchate became much sharper: it was at that time that Bulgaria was baptised and an argument broke out between Rome and Constantinople over the patronage of the new Christian country. ... In 1054 there was a formal break between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) church when Pope Leo IX and Michael Caerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematised each other. This signified a formal split†(A Millennium of Russian Orthodoxy, pp. 20-21).

The Roman Catholic Church and its twin, Eastern Orthodoxy, were formed by a spiritually adulterous relationship between the political empire and apostate church leaders. The latter claimed authority over the Lords churches and amalgamated pagan practices with New Testament truth to form an impure form of Christianity. This explains the origin of such unscriptural practices as the mass, purgatory, sacraments, prayers to and for the dead, consecrated buildings, Mary worship, scapulars, and the rosary. Eastern Orthodoxy has its roots in this same apostasy.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both claim direct descent from Christ and the Apostles, but that this claim is bogus is evident in their non-apostolic doctrines and practices. As a result of the split with Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy is not united under one head. There are many groupings of Orthodox, all having the same basic doctrine and practice with some minor variation: Russian Orthodox, Albanian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, etc. Though not united under a world headquarters, these groupings are united separately into episcopal councils, over which a bishop rules. Also, each group is in turn in formal relationship with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who presides over all the Eastern Orthodox churches. “No one patriarch is responsible to any other patriarch; yet all are within the jurisdiction of an ecumenical council of all the churches, in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople, who holds the title Ecumenical Patriarch†(Handbook). From a biblical perspective, there is little difference between the ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism and that of Eastern Orthodoxy. Both incorporate an unscriptural form of church government through which a intra-church bureaucracy lords over the local assembly.

DOCTRINE: In addition to rejecting the papacy, with its doctrines of supremacy and infallibility, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects purgatory and the doctrine of indulgences. Like Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy has a consecrated priesthood and seven sacraments which only the priests have authority to perform--baptism, anointing, communion, penance, holy orders, marriage, and holy unction (Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 9th ed.). Infants and adults are baptized by threefold immersion. Sacraments are believed to be channels of grace, as contrasted to the New Testament ordinances of baptism and the Lords Supper which are simple memorials rather than actual means of grace. Orthodoxy practices the mass or the “Holy Eucharist†[eucharist means praise] whereby Christ supposedly is sacrificed anew and the bread and wine of the “eucharist†becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. Orthodoxy worships Mary as the Mother of God. Prayers are offered for the dead, who also are believed to pray for those on earth. Justification is attained through faith and works.

MEMBERSHIP: In 1990 there were an estimated three million Orthodox church members in the United States, though membership statistics are unreliable due to the fact that they are based on baptismal records rather than active participation in church life. A 1987 report estimated 173 million Orthodox worldwide, but again, this statistic is almost meaningless in relation to how many adults actually practice the Orthodox faith.

LITURGY: Orthodoxy is extremely focused on liturgy (ritualistic forms of worship) and icons. The latter are images which are supposed to represent various saints and spiritual realities. The Orthodox claim they do not worship these as idols, but they serve the same purpose. Prayers are addressed before these icons, candles are burned before them, incense and holy water is put upon them. In biblical terminology, icons are indeed idols.

GOSPEL: Orthodoxy preaches a false gospel. According to Orthodox teaching, baptism (even of infants) is the means whereby an individual is born into Christ and becomes a Christian. This false gospel is cited from one of their own publications:

“Baptism is a new birth. It is being born to the life made new by our Lord Jesus Christ. It means to be alive in Christ. ... Through Holy Baptism all become Christ’s. We become Christians and have the opportunity to inherit God’s Kingdom. Why in the world would any parents who claim to be Christians want to put off making their offspring Christians as soon as possible? Don’t they want their infants to share in the Kingdom of God? The baptized one becomes a member of Christ’s body--His Church†(One Church, Russian Orthodox Church, 1981).

The Orthodox Church also advocates prayers to and for the dead, and the false, wicked idea that the living can aid in the salvation of the deceased through good works: “But the soul of the deceased is aided by the prayers of the Church, of all those who knew and loved him, and also by acts of charity carried out for his sake. By doing good works for the sake of those who are dead, we are, as it were, completing what they left undone, paying their debts and offering our own sacrifice to the Merciful Lord on their behalf†(The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No. 10, 1976).

In the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No. 4, 1980, we find the following false teachings about Mary, salvation, and the Lord’s Supper:

“When one asserts his faith in the Son of God, the Son of the Ever Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [note the false Catholic doctrines that Mary is the Mother of God and a perpetual virgin, meaning that she had no other children after Jesus], he accepts first of all the words of faith into his heart, confesses them orally, sincerely repents of his former sins and washes them away in the sacrament of Baptism. Then God the Word enters the baptized one, as though into the womb of the Blessed Virgin and remains in him like a seed. ... By partaking of the Holy Eucharist, a Christian is made one with Christ†(Foundation, Nov.-Dec. 1980, p. 21).

From these quotes it is obvious that the Orthodox Church is entirely apostate. It holds the same basic set of false beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church from which it broke away in the ninth century.

ECUMENISM: The Eastern Orthodox churches are members of and form an influential block within the World Council of Churches. In recent years steps have also been taken to reconcile the Eastern Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I formally lifted the excommunications of 1054.

:-D

BibleJunky

 

[BibleJunky]

Frankly I'd rather see them defend defend Christ and the Bible before defending a translation.

This is also an error of the Modern day Church...

The Bible says...:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV)

and...

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
(Jude 1:3-23 KJV)

Argue with that. :-D

BibleJunky

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Well, BibleJunky, those links demonstrate all of the scholarly acumen and objective analysis that one finds in the KJV-only camp.

That is to say, it is supermarket tabloid scholarship, an editorial opinion posing as an encyclopedic review.

Ironically, although the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation was sparked off by the flight of Greek scholars taking with them valuable manuscripts to the West after the conquest of Constantinople, the Orthodox Church herself was never blessed with a similar experience....

For this we do not cease to give thanks, and pray that we are spared the 'blessing' of every man a pope.

So going back to my pointed comments: Your homies are using Orthodox, Catholic sources to support their strange doctrines and beliefs- yet they reject the theology of same. Accept their bible, scholarship, and caretaking, but reject their thoughts on the matters at hand.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Frankly I'd rather see them defend defend Christ and the Bible before defending a translation.

This is also an error of the Modern day Church...

The Bible says...:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV)

and...

[quote:00658]Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
(Jude 1:3-23 KJV)

Argue with that. :-D

BibleJunky[/quote:00658]

Okay, what exactly are you trying to say? You would Defend the KJV before defending Christ? Please say I'm reading you wrong.

 

[BibleJunky]

No Timothy, Defending the King James Version *IS* Defending Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1 KJV)

:-D

 

[Orthodox Christian]

No Timothy, Defending the King James Version *IS* Defending Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1 KJV)

:-D

One might accept the notion that defending the Textus Receptus, or some other particular textual tradition is akin to defense of the Words of Christ- but suggesting that a translation that is rich in prose and middlin' on accuracy is synonymous with defending Christ is, well, both illogical and idolatrous.

You'll note that your quote above is a translation. Without understanding who and what O Logos (the Word) was in classical Greek thought, ie in the intended meaning of John, one can enter into the mistaken notion that John is referring to Christ as the Word, in the same sense that some people use the capitalized "Word" when referring to scripture. This is also incorrect, for scripture was typically referred to as 'tas graphas.'

By this I mean that only the original Greek, studied in both linguistic and historical context, results in good translation. This is why often the Living versions or Amplified versions actually give a better rendering than the word-for-word translations. In point of fact, this is why churches have teaching pastors. These pastors should not be teaching from translations only, whether KJV or critical text-based. No, pastor should have the ability to understand the nuances of the Greek.

 

[JM]

It was during my time at St. Nektarios that I was convinced the KJV was the best translation, before that I never used it.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Of course, Jason- we have an affinity for the KJV as an English translation, being as it is based on the received Byzantine texts.
Neverthless, we most often use the RSV for Epistle readings.

 

[JM]

Of course, Jason- we have an affinity for the KJV as an English translation, being as it is based on the received Byzantine texts.
Neverthless, we most often use the RSV for Epistle readings.

Which of course, does't make sense...the RSV has been altered by mss that don't belong to the Byzantine (MT MS) texts...

peace

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Of course, Jason- we have an affinity for the KJV as an English translation, being as it is based on the received Byzantine texts.
Neverthless, we most often use the RSV for Epistle readings.

Which of course, does't make sense...the RSV has been altered by mss that don't belong to the Byzantine (MT MS) texts...

peace

Absolutely right. As much as I can appreciate critical scholarship, I'm not sure how well it fits within the received tradition. I mean that more than just in the sense of a motif- I mean it in the sense of 'if we cannot have confidence in our received scripture, how can we have confidence in our received tradition?

 

[Blazin Bones]

No Timothy, Defending the King James Version *IS* Defending Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1 KJV)

:-D

How do you come to that conclusion? Defending the Bible is defending Christ. The Bible is the Word of God. the KJV is just another one of man's translations.

 

[Vic C.]

Of course, Jason- we have an affinity for the KJV as an English translation, being as it is based on the received Byzantine texts.
Neverthless, we most often use the RSV for Epistle readings.

I'm with you concerning the Byzantine text. 8-) Btw, I have noticed a few times you quoted from the LITV, which I have come to really like lately. Nice to see someone else using it.

Peace,
Vic

 

[stovebolts]

No Timothy, Defending the King James Version *IS* Defending Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1 KJV)

:-D

Do you really think that Christ needs to be defended through man's understanding of a translation? :o
I have once heard it said that the KJV was written at a 6th grade level. I now believe this to be a comprehensive level. By that, I mean no disrespect.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Did Peter build the ekklesia? Did Peter have anything to do with the ekklesia? No... but my Father which is in heaven.

My friend, the "Word" was not the KJV... but it (kjv) holds it's place in history just the same. Put your faith in God and not some translation for through faith by God's grace, the Word will be revealed to you. But make no mistake, it will be like it was with Peter, that it is not of your will or understanding, but the grace given by the Father that will reveal.

 

[Novice]

I'm glad Biblejunky has had the guts to say what others merely skirt around:


We worship a book.

We snicker at the illiterate societies (of Medieval Catholic Europe, or modern primitive peoples) who worship statues, because, having learned to read, we've substituted a much more "sophisticated" idol.

The Bible, though inspired (and I believe preserved and protected) by God, is most certainly not God, any more than "Mere Christianity" IS C.S. Lewis. A good way to get to know and gain insight into Mr. Lewis' ideas and thoughts, but no substitute for knowing the man himself (which I did not). The Jews thought it blasphemous merely to speak the name of YHWH (that by naming we might imagine to have expressed or contained Him), yet we imply that the infinite mind of the creator is contained in a book, (and one written in English, no less).

I prayerfully hope that the kind of Bibliolatry that we see in modern America will be viewed by God-fearing servants of Christ 500 years from now the same way we "Modern Christians" view statuary in cathedrals whose feet have been worn down from tears and kissing. It was a function of the society and the time, we've learned and moved on.

"Further up and further in", as Mr. Lewis would say.

[/b]

 

[JM]

http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/or ... um=HOLY275[/url]

http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/or ... um=OZST140 (I dislike this one, personally.)

http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/or ... um=OZNE100 (I'm [still] thinking about ordering this one.)

Peace,
j
PS: I've always wanted a copy of The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox, have you ever seen it?

 

[JM]

Any comments from the Orthodox on my above post?