The Majority Text: Divine Preservation and Christian Reason

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

Ok. So what's one theological principle that you got from the majority text that isn't made clear in other translations of the text? That's the issue for me. In my years of using different translations, I haven't found any, so I'm always seeking the answer from those who know.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

Ok. So what's one theological principle that you got from the majority text that isn't made clear in other translations of the text? That's the issue for me. In my years of using different translations, I haven't found any, so I'm always seeking the answer from those who know.

God bless,
Ted

Revelation 13:1 “I stood” versus “He stood” | End Time News

Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth! They assume...

endtimenews.net

John alludes to Daniel because it use of symbolism explains what John intends, but all the newer "critical texts" destroy the allusion.

Because the allusion is destroyed, few commentators interpret Revelation correctly.

The Grecian-Roman Empire with Seven Heads and Ten Horns | End Time News

The monster having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-5) is the last global government to rise in the seven-year end time "week" before the coming Kingdom of God. In the book of Daniel this is the fourth and last government beast to rise (Dan. 7:7). Because it is a Grecian version of the old

endtimenews.net

 

[GodsGrace]

Revelation 13:1 “I stood” versus “He stood” | End Time News

Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth! They assume...

endtimenews.net

John alludes to Daniel because it use of symbolism explains what John intends, but all the newer "critical texts" destroy the allusion.

Because the allusion is destroyed, few commentators interpret Revelation correctly.

The Grecian-Roman Empire with Seven Heads and Ten Horns | End Time News

The monster having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-5) is the last global government to rise in the seven-year end time "week" before the coming Kingdom of God. In the book of Daniel this is the fourth and last government beast to rise (Dan. 7:7). Because it is a Grecian version of the old

endtimenews.net

A,
Could you explain to me what allusion John is referring to and how some texts destroy it?
Thanks.

 

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

Revelation 13:1 “I stood” versus “He stood” | End Time News

Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth! They assume...

endtimenews.net

Fortunately for the believer, the newer NIV text takes that entire problem and resolves it for us.

The dragon stood on the shore of the sea.

See, the NIV fixes your supposed problem.

Got any other theological principles that one isn't able to grasp unless reading your preferred translation of the MSS?

Trust me friend, or don't. God gave us His testimony through the written form that we might know Him and know all that He has done that we might have the life that He created us for. For that purpose, any good reliable translation will suffice.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Revelation 13:1 “I stood” versus “He stood” | End Time News

Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth! They assume...

endtimenews.net

John alludes to Daniel because it use of symbolism explains what John intends, but all the newer "critical texts" destroy the allusion.

Because the allusion is destroyed, few commentators interpret Revelation correctly.

The Grecian-Roman Empire with Seven Heads and Ten Horns | End Time News

The monster having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-5) is the last global government to rise in the seven-year end time "week" before the coming Kingdom of God. In the book of Daniel this is the fourth and last government beast to rise (Dan. 7:7). Because it is a Grecian version of the old

endtimenews.net

I have to agree with both of you.
If it weren't for scholars some things would not be understood.
However, as miamited is saying, everything we need for salvation can be understood by everyone reading.

Scholars get into nuances that are interesting but are not necessary for salvation.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I have to agree with both of you.
If it weren't for scholars some things would not be understood.
However, as miamited is saying, everything we need for salvation can be understood by everyone reading.

Scholars get into nuances that are interesting but are not necessary for salvation.

I agree with you. And I started my reply to him his "test" for a version wasn't so bad, as long as one didn't try to be accurate.

But I misspoke, like you I do appreciate sound scholarship. I quote it all the time. I meant higher criticism and most lower criticism of the Bible, the result of which hasn't been good for faith in the Word of God. Think of those who deny the Holy Trinity but might have been persuaded if the new versions didn't rip 1 John 5:7 out of their texts.

Erasmus said evil copyists had removed the "Johannine Comma" (1 John 5:7) from some mss that once had it.

It is in the Latin version and quoted by some Latin Fathers. Its in the Majority Text, which would be the case if it weren't everywhere in most mss:

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 Jn. 5:7 NKJ)

Dean Burgon made a compelling argument, especially from the internal evidence if you remove it, there is a gap in line of thought:

Dean John William Burgon was a 19th-century English theologian and textual scholar who argued for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.

Burgon's defense of the Johannine Comma was based on several lines of evidence, including arguments from Greek manuscripts, patristic quotations, and internal stylistic consistency. Here are some of the key points he made:

1. Greek Manuscripts: Burgon argued that a significant number of Greek manuscripts, including the Codex Montfortianus and the Codex Ottobonianus, contained the Johannine Comma. He believed that these manuscripts represented an ancient and independent textual tradition, which attested to the authenticity of the passage.
2. Patristic Quotations: Burgon pointed to several early Church fathers who quoted the Johannine Comma, such as Cyprian, Priscillian, and Vigilius of Thapsus. He argued that their usage indicated that the passage was known and accepted in the early Christian community.
3. Internal Stylistic Consistency: Burgon observed that the Johannine Comma fits into the context of the surrounding verses and maintains the stylistic characteristics of the rest of the First Epistle of John. He argued that its inclusion would enhance the coherence and theological consistency of the passage.

The Majority Text is as "objective" as it gets, it looks at all the mss and accepts the majority reading. In a sense, that is allowing God's Providence establish the text. I don't trust men beyond their correcting spelling errors etc.

In my research I sometimes found a detail all the scholars ignored was the key to understanding the otherwise "obscure" text. "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build" is a case in point. Small details in the usage of PETROS indicate the NT is translating the Aramaic PTR which in Greek is a homonym to PETROS stone. That changes the exegesis of Mat. 16:18 back to what it was in the 1st century:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

 

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

While I also approve of reading what some, that we hold up as teachers of the word, have to say on different passages and how they were to be understood in those days. And I also respect sound theological doctrine, which can only be gained from God's word. My argument is against anyone who believes that one 'reliable' version is better in some way than another for the salvation of mankind. As I mentioned earlier, I have studied many, many of the reliable versions, and yes that doesn't include books such as the Apocrypha, Pearl of Great Price or Book of Mormon or the NWT translation. Yes, these books all have some fairly grave errors. I'm also not particularly fond of the 'paraphrased' translations like the Good News version.. Far too much possibility for error in not using the words that God gave us to hear. But in all of those that remain as 'reliable' translations, I believe the truth that God wants each and every one of us to hear and know before we leave this earth, is clearly proclaimed in every one of them.

I firmly believe, just as much as Jesus was born to die for my sin, that the word of God was given to us that we might find that truth and come to believe and be saved on the day of God's judgment. That's why, I believe, that God gave us His word. It tells us all about the wonderful and marvelous and unbelievable work that He did in 6 days to create all that exists around us. From the pinpoint center of our planet to the furthest star in the furthest galaxy. God created it all in 6 days. I don't think there's a single reliable version that doesn't open with that exact same truth.

That He then watched over the earth as people began to multiply and to live their lives and was just so terribly grieved that, left to our own devices, we are a wicked lot of folks. He destroyed that existence and started over. But this time He set teachers and preachers to go out among us to proclaim His truth. Beginning with a man by the name of Abram, God set in motion the building of an entire nation of people, who would always be known upon the earth, as His people. He allows us to follow along as He tells of all the marvelous and wonderful things He did for His people...but also the punishments for sin. I have yet to find a single version of any reliable translation that doesn't make all of that clear.

Then, in the fullness of time, the Scriptures tell us...in other words when it was supposed to be...Jesus came as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The one that God had painstakingly told us about as He was authoring the books written by the Jewish prophets. At least 600 years before Jesus even breathed his first breath as a baby in that manger, God was winding and weaving a scarlet thread throughout the tellings of His prophets. Jesus came to earth! I haven't missed that message in a single translation.

And finally, that Jesus is the one that was sent for our salvation. That it is through faith, trust and love in him, that we may enjoy the eternal life with our Father who loves us. Jesus is that Messiah of God. By trusting in His sacrifice for our sin and proclaiming that he is Lord, then striving to live as he has asked us to live, I believe a man can be saved.

I find that clear message proclaimed among all of the reliable translations. So, you can argue that the Einsteins of God won't be able to understand all that God has told us in His word unless they sit down with your special and specific version in front of them. But I rather think, since the version you're using is a translation, apparently cobbled together by 47 people by the decree of a king, from previous texts; that similar works on the Scriptures that are still going on today are just as much Holy Spirit led as you seem to believe those 47 people were back then.

I firmly believe, in reading the forward of the NIV translation of the Scriptures, that the men and women who gave of their many years of diligent work, had just the exact same heart for God that those 47 people did in King James' day.

How the King James Bible came to be​

When King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England in 1603, he was well aware that he was entering a sticky situation.

For one thing, his immediate predecessor on the throne, Queen Elizabeth I, had ordered the execution of his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, who had represented a Catholic threat to Elizabeth’s Protestant reign. And even though Elizabeth had established the supremacy of the Anglican Church (founded by her father, King Henry VIII), its bishops now had to contend with rebellious Protestant groups like the Puritans and Calvinists, who questioned their absolute power.

By the time James took the throne, many people in England at the time were hearing one version of the Bible when they went to church, but were reading from another when they were at home. While one version of Christianity’s holy texts—the so-called Bishops’ Bible—was read in churches, the most popular version among Protestant reformers in England at the time was the Geneva Bible, which had been created in that city by a group of Calvinist exiles during the bloody reign of Elizabeth’s half-sister, Mary I.

For the new king, the Geneva Bible posed a political problem, since it contained certain annotations questioning not only the bishops’ power, but his own. So in 1604, when a Puritan scholar proposed the creation of a new translation of the Bible at a meeting at a religious conference at Hampton Court, James surprised him by agreeing.

Over the next seven years, 47 scholars and theologians worked to translate the different books of the Bible: the Old Testament from Hebrew, the New Testament from Greek and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. Much of the resulting translation drew on the work of the Protestant reformer William Tyndale, who had produced the first New Testament translation from Greek into English in 1525, but was executed for heresy less than a decade later.

(from History.com)

So hopefully, you can understand that those 47 people who worked on the KJ translation studied various manuscripts and made judgment calls on certain areas as much as any translator might do today. Friend, God's Holy Spirit has been working throughout the generations to see to it that mankind always has a reliable copy of God's word, in a language that they can understand. I mean that began even back in the old covenant days. It's how we got the Alexandrian and the Textus Receptus. Two different groups of people took it upon themselves to make the word of God, at that point, available in the various languages and they used different source materials, also. But the message,...THE MESSAGE is still the same. Trust me or don't, the Holy Spirit is seeing to it that each generation has the truth in an easily understandable translation to them.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

I agree with you. And I started my reply to him his "test" for a version wasn't so bad, as long as one didn't try to be accurate.

And I guess, it was this final little attachment you felt compelled to add, 'as long as one didn't try to be accurate'.

Can you please take just a moment and tell me what I said in my treatise of the purpose for which God gave us His word, that isn't accurate to God's word?

So, I'd stick with what wondering said about wanting to delve into the deeper things. I believe that all of the 'reliable' translations are accurate, as far as we can ever know that they are. After all, there is not one single letter, jot or tittle of any original writing by the hand of its human writer, that is available to us. All we have are copies. And about the only way to know that a copy is reliable is to stack it up against the others. It is in this process of trying to verify the reliability of any scrap that we have, against other such scraps that we have, that differences are found. Also, in the actual work of translating, we are always looking for an equivalency between how any word in the original language should be translated with a word from the new language. These are all judgment calls that every translator, even the 47 involved in the KJ, come up against when trying to take a piece of written work from one language to another. And even more so when you can't be 100% sure that any of the copies are 100% correct. But, it isn't like 80% of the text has these problems. More like 2-5% of the entirety of what is written today in our versions, comes under question with other versions.

And that issue can always be traced back to the work of copyists. Because as far as we know, there was only one original written by the hand of the human writer that God's Spirit used. We just don't know exactly, word for word, what that is in these few cases. But they are never issues of such size that it would rob someone of the knowledge of salvation...which is the purpose for which God sent His word unto mankind.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 Jn. 5:7 NKJ)

Dean Burgon made a compelling argument, especially from the internal evidence if you remove it, there is a gap in line of thought:

Dean John William Burgon was a 19th-century English theologian and textual scholar who argued for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.

Hi Alfred Persson

Let me ask you a question: Do you have the original manuscript that John wrote as his testimony of all that Jesus did among us?

God bless,
Ted

 

[for_his_glory]

Christians are told scholars establish the "original text" through careful analysis, picking the best variant that conforms to their idea of what the original said. However, that is unsound being circular. They produce a text in their own preconceived image and believe its the truth!

They assume where John “stood” or whether he “stood” at all is "wholly immaterial; where the dragon stood is material". Of course the variant conforming to their presupposition is the one they prefer: "he [the Dragon] stood", not "I [John] stood". Dr. Bruce Metzger opines "The latter reading appears to have arisen when copyists accommodated ἐστάθη to the first person of the following εἶδον."-Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 673). United Bible Societies.

Consider the stupidity of having John and the Dragon as tourists calmly gazing out to the sea. Weren't we just told "the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 12:17 NKJ). Wow! That was a short war!

If we let blind scholars rewrite our scriptures, what does that say about us? Let the shiny dragon capture their attention.

We will interpret the phrase "I stood upon the sand of the sea" as allusion to Daniel 7:4-8:27 where the "interpretive keys to the symbolism of beasts and horns are found.

The monster having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-5) is the last global government to rise in the seven-year end time "week" before the coming Kingdom of God. In the book of Daniel this is the fourth and last government beast to rise (Dan. 7:7). Because it is a Grecian version of the old Byzantine Roman Empire (before the split) it has 7 heads (count the heads Dan. 7:2-7) in a leopard body. The head that died and was revived is Ancient Babylon, its first head. So this entire beast is in effect the Eighth king "out of seven" (Rev. 17:7-10). The Beast is both Empire and Emperor just as in Daniel 7:17.

John saw two phases of this revived Grecian Roman Babylonian Empire Beast. It rises from a sea of spiritism (Job 38:16-17; Isa. 27:1; Ps. 74:13; Dan. 7:2 compare Rev. 21:1) when Satan and his fallen angels appear on earth (Rev. 12:7-9) insisting they can only work through global government to deliver global peace and safety (1 Thess. 5:3).

They install the False Christ Rider on the White Horse as its first "Chancellor", "the mouth of a lion" (Rev. 13:2). The second phase begins at mid week, after 3.5 years when Adonikam the false Christ breaks the covenant he made with the world's religions and reveals he actually is the Seed of Satan "Son of Destruction" (Dan. 9:27; Rev. 13:5). He now denies the Father and Son and blasphemes Yahweh God, both His dwelling and His angels:

5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear.
10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Rev. 13:5-10)

The Grecian-Roman Empire with Seven Heads and Ten Horns | End Time News

The monster having seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13:1-5) is the last global government to rise in the seven-year end time "week" before the coming Kingdom of God. In the book of Daniel this is the fourth and last government beast to rise (Dan. 7:7). Because it is a Grecian version of the old

endtimenews.net

Is this not just your view or that of the commentaries views as in a certain sect of a majority rule teaching? It truly doesn't matter what versions you want to study from as it is only the Holy Spirit that can teach us all truths, John 14:26. We have also been taught how to rightly divide the word of God and test the spirits that teach us, 1John 4:1-6.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him, 1John 2:27.

Should we be taught denominational doctrine as many churches differ in their understandings by traditional majority rule teachings that so many or indoctrinated in that could be very deceiving, or be taught from that which has already been written which is the Doctrine of Christ for what He has already taught as God's word does not come back void to Him.

2Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Is this not just your view or that of the commentaries views as in a certain sect of a majority rule teaching? It truly doesn't matter what versions you want to study from as it is only the Holy Spirit that can teach us all truths, John 14:26. We have also been taught how to rightly divide the word of God and test the spirits that teach us, 1John 4:1-6.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him, 1John 2:27.

Should we be taught denominational doctrine as many churches differ in their understandings by traditional majority rule teachings that so many or indoctrinated in that could be very deceiving, or be taught from that which has already been written which is the Doctrine of Christ for what He has already taught as God's word does not come back void to Him.

2Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

I misspoke, I actually love critical commentary by scholars. There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors and I have benefited from hearing the various perspectives the Hebrew or Greek may imply.

I don't like criticism of the scripture, its integrity. Its the ONLY thing Christians can 100% trust. Everything else is subject to "falling away, becoming corrupt." Men, instintutions, churches, they all can go astray. The ONLY thing we have is Scripture.


Even our own experiences can deceive us.

5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?-- unless indeed you are disqualified.
6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. (2 Cor. 13:5-6 NKJ)


God the Holy Spirit speaks through His Word the Bible, if a man loses faith in Scripture his access to the very words of God is lost and his faith "kneecapped."

Scripture is the Objective Truth against which everything else must stand or fall. It takes self-discipline to constantly be on watch lest something "Christian-like", a counterfeit deceive us:

3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-- you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:3-4 NKJ)

Many believers have been deceived, they question if Christ's words are accurate:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)

"Jot" and "tittle" symbolize "the smallest meaning" will not be lost, until all of it is fulfilled.

Christ never promised things that convey no real meaning, diacritical marks, use of synonyms, misspellings, minor change in word order that doesn't affect meaning, wouldn't happen.

He promised none of those minor defects in copying the autographs would cause even the smallest meaning in the Bible, to be lost. Only in God's Kingdom is all of it fulfilled.

AND beyond any reasonable doubt, that is precisely what the Majority Text proves.

 

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

I too, am interested in this 'allusion' that we're all missing because we don't use the correct translation. Watching for the answer.

BTW, did you dust off that original of John's writing that you have. I'm interested in your telling me what he actually wrote.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

I too, am interested in this 'allusion' that we're all missing because we don't use the correct translation. Watching for the answer.

BTW, did you dust off that original of John's writing that you have. I'm interested in your telling me what he actually wrote.

God bless,
Ted

Happy to oblige. I thought the allusion was "obvious", but as the scholars missed it, perhaps its not:

2 Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.
3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. (Dan. 7:2-3 NKJ)

Obviously, Daniel is "on the sand of the sea" watching Government Beasts rise from the sea, just like John:

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. (Rev. 13:1 NKJ)

Daniel's vision defines how the symbolism of the Beasts is to be understood. As for the practice of allusion, we see it every time the key words of OT Bible text are quoted. That's where the reader should go for more information.

When you count all the heads of the Beasts in Daniel 7, they number 7 and the animals the same and the last even has ten horns. If all that doesn't scream "John is alluding to Daniel, its the key to interpreting his vision", you must be deaf.

2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. (Rev. 13:2 NKJ)

4 "The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
5 "And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it:`Arise, devour much flesh!'
6 "After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.
7 "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
(Dan. 7:4-8 NKJ)

Daniels last beast is the one John sees coming out of the sea. Its not the same vision, but Daniel's provides the key to interpreting John's vision correctly.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

Let me ask you a question: Do you have the original manuscript that John wrote as his testimony of all that Jesus did among us?

God bless,
Ted

I have something better, Christ's promise:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)

Literal Jots and titles have no meaning to fulfill.

"Jot" and "tittle" symbolize "the smallest meaning": "Not the smallest meaning in scripture will pass until its fulfilled."


Christ never promised copyists wouldn't make errors in copying, that diacritical marks would never change. Or that synonyms wouldn't be used, or some words misspelled, left our or added, or other minor changes in word order.

He promised none of these "errors of transmission" would change even the smallest meaning and prevent its fulfillment.

AND beyond any reasonable doubt, that is precisely what the Majority Text proves happened. Nothing has changed, we have the same bible of the apostles, its in the Majority Text.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Is this not just your view or that of the commentaries views as in a certain sect of a majority rule teaching? It truly doesn't matter what versions you want to study from as it is only the Holy Spirit that can teach us all truths, John 14:26. We have also been taught how to rightly divide the word of God and test the spirits that teach us, 1John 4:1-6.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him, 1John 2:27.

Should we be taught denominational doctrine as many churches differ in their understandings by traditional majority rule teachings that so many or indoctrinated in that could be very deceiving, or be taught from that which has already been written which is the Doctrine of Christ for what He has already taught as God's word does not come back void to Him.

2Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

I apologize, I didn't answer your main question and its a valid one:

Should we be taught denominational doctrine as many churches differ in their understandings

I think we should know what they are, review their disputes against each other and in the final decision, let the Bible decide.

Even a room of Holy Spirit inspired prophets will likely not agree on everything. That's the human condition, God is dealing with vessels of clay.

Recall what John the Baptist asked Christ:

2 And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples
3 and said to Him, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"
4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and tell John the things which you hear and see:
5 "The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
6 "And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." (Matt. 11:2-6 NKJ)

John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and he was sent to herald the coming of Christ. Yet he obviously didn't agree what the Messiah would do, and so he asked Jesus for clarification.

So, being filled with the Holy Spirit doesn't mean we will always agree. What we should agree on, is obeying God's Holy Word to the best of our conscience in the Holy Spirit:

I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, (Rom. 9:1 NKJ)

You and I disagree on much, but I don't believe you are any less a Christian than I. Its the human condition. It will be fixed when the Complete comes, and the partial done away.

 

[Alfred Persson]

And I guess, it was this final little attachment you felt compelled to add, 'as long as one didn't try to be accurate'.

Can you please take just a moment and tell me what I said in my treatise of the purpose for which God gave us His word, that isn't accurate to God's word?

So, I'd stick with what wondering said about wanting to delve into the deeper things. I believe that all of the 'reliable' translations are accurate, as far as we can ever know that they are. After all, there is not one single letter, jot or tittle of any original writing by the hand of its human writer, that is available to us. All we have are copies. And about the only way to know that a copy is reliable is to stack it up against the others. It is in this process of trying to verify the reliability of any scrap that we have, against other such scraps that we have, that differences are found. Also, in the actual work of translating, we are always looking for an equivalency between how any word in the original language should be translated with a word from the new language. These are all judgment calls that every translator, even the 47 involved in the KJ, come up against when trying to take a piece of written work from one language to another. And even more so when you can't be 100% sure that any of the copies are 100% correct. But, it isn't like 80% of the text has these problems. More like 2-5% of the entirety of what is written today in our versions, comes under question with other versions.

And that issue can always be traced back to the work of copyists. Because as far as we know, there was only one original written by the hand of the human writer that God's Spirit used. We just don't know exactly, word for word, what that is in these few cases. But they are never issues of such size that it would rob someone of the knowledge of salvation...which is the purpose for which God sent His word unto mankind.

God bless,
Ted

Didn't accuse you of inaccuracy at all. If treating the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, or whether the Dragon stood on the sand of the sea with the apostle John like Tourists on vacation in Rev. 13:1, you must depart from obviously flawed texts.

But I began with agreement, use the version you like. I like the NIV, even though its hated by the KJV only people. I find "dynamic equivalence" sometime aids in understanding the idiom, which can be misinterpreted given our vastly different cultures.

So I apologize if you thought that "addition" was directed at you personally, that wasn't my intent at all.

Here's an NIV text I really like over the other versions:

1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and you will delight in the richest of fare.
3 Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.

4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a ruler and commander of the peoples.
5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations you do not know will come running to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."

6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
(Isa. 55:1-11 NIV)

Another passage the NIV does very well is Isaiah 56:3-7.

Its like a prophetic "word of the LORD" to all born again believers, who love the LORD and carry His cross daily, but made to feel like a foreigner in God's House---"a dry tree" because they manifest only the miracle of a changed heart and spirit 100% given to Jesus, and not tongues signs or wonders.


3 Let no foreigner who is bound to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let no eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree."

4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant--
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant--
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."
(Isa. 56:3-7 NIV)

 

[miamited]

When you count all the heads of the Beasts in Daniel 7, they number 7 and the animals the same and the last even has ten horns. If all that doesn't scream "John is alluding to Daniel, its the key to interpreting his vision", you must be deaf.

Hi Alfred Persson

Wow! That's your big allusion that everyone is missing that doesn't read your authorized translation of the Scriptures? Really? I've studied prophetic writings of the Scriptures for quite some time now and I think just about everyone who has, knows that John is referring to the same beast as in Daniel.

Here's a teaching from biblestudytools.com:

First, there is a great parallel between this beast in Revelation 13 and the one described in Daniel 7. If you have not done so I would encourage you to read Daniel 7 and you will see many of the parallels. Simply put, it’s easy to see that Daniel and John in Revelation are referring to the same beast.

I'm honestly not sold on your idea that nobody can figure that out unless they read your authorized translation. So, I'm not really in agreement that we somehow have 'lost' the allusion that you claim we have in this specific mention of the beast of both Daniel and Revelation.

Got another one?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

I'm curious what translations you believe are based on the majority text method?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

Wow! That's your big allusion that everyone is missing that doesn't read your authorized translation of the Scriptures? Really? I've studied prophetic writings of the Scriptures for quite some time now and I think just about everyone who has, knows that John is referring to the same beast as in Daniel.

Here's a teaching from biblestudytools.com:

First, there is a great parallel between this beast in Revelation 13 and the one described in Daniel 7. If you have not done so I would encourage you to read Daniel 7 and you will see many of the parallels. Simply put, it’s easy to see that Daniel and John in Revelation are referring to the same beast.

I'm honestly not sold on your idea that nobody can figure that out unless they read your authorized translation. So, I'm not really in agreement that we somehow have 'lost' the allusion that you claim we have in this specific mention of the beast of both Daniel and Revelation.

Got another one?

God bless,
Ted

That was just one allusion the "eclectic" texts of modern scholarship tried to erase. That they didn't succeed is a testament to the church.

Other allusions, they are everywhere. A book is available listing them all. Google it.

Here's a site listing a few, in case you don't have the coin to buy the book:

Old Testament References and Allusions in Revelation 1-3 | Talmidim Way

The Old Testament is in the New Testament Revealed

talmidimway.org

Here's a few even CHATGPT knows:

1. Revelation 1:7: "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him." This alludes to Zechariah 12:10, which speaks of the mourning for the one who was pierced.
2. Revelation 5:5: "See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed." This references Genesis 49:9, which prophesies about Judah being a lion's cub, and Isaiah 11:1, which speaks of a shoot from the stump of Jesse (David's father).
3. Revelation 11:8: "Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified." This draws a parallel between Jerusalem (where Jesus was crucified) and Sodom (known for its wickedness) and Egypt (associated with oppression and slavery). It alludes to Genesis 19 (the destruction of Sodom) and Exodus (Israel's deliverance from Egypt).
4. Revelation 12:1: "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head." This alludes to Genesis 37:9-10, where Joseph dreams of the sun, moon, and stars representing his family, as well as the promise to Abraham of descendants as numerous as the stars (Genesis 15:5).
5. Revelation 16:16: "Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon." This refers to the battle of Armageddon, which alludes to the Old Testament concept of the gathering of nations against Israel, particularly in Zechariah 12-14 and Joel 3.

When John gives the clue about the name of the Antichrist, 666, it alludes to Adonikam. Tell me how that isn't important:

Adonikam is the Name of the Beast having 666 meaning | End Time News

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six (Rev. 13:18 KJV) Many insist we use Gematria (substituting letters for numbers) to solve the riddle of 666 meaning, although they cannot...

endtimenews.net

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

I'm curious what translations you believe are based on the majority text method?

God bless,
Ted

That's a problem. The best is the New King James because it will list wherever it departs from the Majority Text.

But that is the beauty of the Majority Text, the KJV and other old Bibles based on the "Textus Receptus", are all good versions to use. The English may be strange at first, but you can get used to it:

16. For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto all good workes.
(2 Tim. 3:16-17 Geneva Bible 1599)

16 For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god is proffitable to teache to improve to amende and to instruct in rightewesnes
17 that the man of god maye be perfect and prepared vnto all good workes.
(2 Tim. 3:16-17 The Tyndale New Testament 1534)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 KJV)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)