The Majority Text: Divine Preservation and Christian Reason

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

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

Look, I think that one of us has lost our way. I understand that there are a lot of allusions in the Scriptures. Your opening point was that unless we use the Majority text method, then we lose those allusions. That's what both wondering and I have been asking you about...which ones do we lose?

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.

Ok fine. Now is that passage not in the other texts that may not be based on the Majority text method?

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).

Again, is that not found in other texts of the Scriptures? In fact, my NIV generally has margin notes that point out many of these allusions.

What I'm asking is for you to substantiate your claim the we somehow don't find the allusions, not whether there are allusions referencing different passages of the Scriptures with another. I don't know of any scholar of the Scriptures that would deny that the Scriptures are full of allusions.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)

Hi Alfred Persson

All wonderful passages of Scripture. However, I don't see anything in there that would seem to infer that God knew there was going to be some text referred to as the 'majority text' that would be the basis of the translation that we use. That Paul was writing to Timothy before there even was a majority text would rather deny that he was referring to it. When he said that all Scriptures is God breathed..., he was talking about the original hand written manuscripts, of which we have none. I'm pretty doubtful this idea of 'majority text' was even mentioned in his lifetime.

But either way, while this passage does encourage us to know the Scriptures, I don't see that it somehow defines 'what' copy of that Scripture is the one that is true.

Listen, you're free to espouse whatever translation of the Scriptures you find best, but this idea that you can only find the truth of God in one of them, is just not true. It just is not a true statement. Oh, and BTW, the Textus Receptus is not always in line with the majority text. That's a lot of what those 47 scholars in King James's day discussed, just as we are still discussing today.

It is interesting to note that none of the modern English Bible translations are based on the Majority Text. The KJV and NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus, which is very similar to the Majority Text, but differs from the Majority Text over 1,800 times.
from: compellingtruth.org

And of course, I'm still waiting for an answer as to 'what' exactly you find theologically different between the texts of the various translations that we have?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson


Look, I think that one of us has lost our way. I understand that there are a lot of allusions in the Scriptures. Your opening point was that unless we use the Majority text method, then we lose those allusions. That's what both wondering and I have been asking you about...which ones do we lose?

Ok fine. Now is that passage not in the other texts that may not be based on the Majority text method?

Again, is that not found in other texts of the Scriptures? In fact, my NIV generally has margin notes that point out many of these allusions.

What I'm asking is for you to substantiate your claim the we somehow don't find the allusions, not whether there are allusions referencing different passages of the Scriptures with another. I don't know of any scholar of the Scriptures that would deny that the Scriptures are full of allusions.

God bless,
Ted

I did NOT say "lot of allusions", I pointed to ONE of them in Rev. 13:1. No straw men please.

I did say details in scripture can be lost in the eclectic texts because they reason in circles. They choose the reading that best fits their understanding of the passage. If they got it wrong, as they did in Rev. 13:1, they can be completely off base.

You keep evading that proof I cited, how absurd it is the Dragon who "went off to make war" on believers, then shows up on the beach with John, like a tourist:

17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
NAU Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, (Rev. 12:17-13:1 NAU)



This proves Scholars can be stupid on occasion, I do not want them deciding which are the words of God and which aren't.

You can trust them all you like, I don't.

As for your straw man, I never said we can't find allusions in the newer versions to the OT, I said Revelation 13:1 is clearly one allusion they tried to remove from scripture.

AND oddly, you keep avoiding that clear example of scholarly blindness and stupidity. The men you admire, are clearly fools in that text.

Why don't you defend their having the Dragon and John gazing upon the sea like Bud-lite buddies?

Why don't you show us how the eclectic versions teaching that absurdity, are superior to the Majority Text?

Where is your defense of them sir?

All I see is a straw man you proposed, to evade the issue.

 

[miamited]

You keep evading that proof I cited, how absurd it is the Dragon who "went off to make war" on believers, then shows up on the beach with John, like a tourist:

Well, this is your attempt to 'load' the question. I don't think anyone thinks that John looked or felt or imagined himself to be a tourist no matter how the scene on the beach unfolds. But you want the option to be more fearful than your truth and so you load it up to denigrate the other option by making it some absurd scenario. This is now the 3rd or 4th time that you've alluded to this other option as being John out on a walk on the beach in Waikiki. Why? The question is merely is John writing that 'he' was on the shore? Or is he writing that the beast was on the shore. Don't need a lot of gaslighting and window dressing to discuss the matter.

Now, as I have long explained to you, the NIV text resolves this issue for you. Yet, you don't think it's a reliable translation even though it handles your biggest, or at least your first, complaint against such translations.

Let me ask you a question: In how many places is the NIV text not aligned with the majority text? I mean, have you ever set a copy of the majority text, and that would not be the KJ translation, side by side and compared the differences? How many?

I did say details in scripture can be lost in the eclectic texts because they reason in circles.

Can you give me 10 such details? And how they were reasoned away by circular reasoning?

God bless,
Ted

 

[for_his_glory]

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.

Have you ever played that game where you whisper something in the ear of the person sitting next to you and they continue to do the same to the next person until the last person down the line repeats what was given in the first person, but got it all wrong. That is the way we are with learning the word of God by those who got it wrong and it keeps being wrong until we are corrected, not by man, but by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Well, this is your attempt to 'load' the question. I don't think anyone thinks that John looked or felt or imagined himself to be a tourist no matter how the scene on the beach unfolds. But you want the option to be more fearful than your truth and so you load it up to denigrate the other option by making it some absurd scenario. This is now the 3rd or 4th time that you've alluded to this other option as being John out on a walk on the beach in Waikiki. Why? The question is merely is John writing that 'he' was on the shore? Or is he writing that the beast was on the shore. Don't need a lot of gaslighting and window dressing to discuss the matter.

Again you don't stand up for the newer versions. I understand, their corruption of the Bible is indefensible. But lest blindness persist, I will explain it:

17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
13:1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, (Rev. 12:17-13:1 NAU)

Both John and the Dragon are on the sea watching the Beast rise. The juxtaposition of the Dragon and John clearly implies they are together. That is the "plain reading" of the text.

Of course you will deny it, but Occam's Razor is against your denial. Parsimony is to be sought in sound interpretation, and you can't follow that hermeneutic because it destroys your argument.

Its not just they are standing there like tourists. There also is the matter of "for what purpose"?

The Dragon does nothing, which means the symbolism means nothing, is meaningless.

As Scripture symbolism is NEVER meaningless, the symbolism created by your foolish scholars cannot be scripture.


Defend your scholars sir, or admit they are blind fools leading the blind.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Have you ever played that game where you whisper something in the ear of the person sitting next to you and they continue to do the same to the next person until the last person down the line repeats what was given in the first person, but got it all wrong. That is the way we are with learning the word of God by those who got it wrong and it keeps being wrong until we are corrected, not by man, but by the Holy Spirit.

That isn't what Christ promised:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 KJV)

As "jot" and "tittle" are tiny marks in scripture that by themselves have no meaning, they can't be "fulfilled." Therefore, these words are figurative for "tiny meaning", even the smallest meaning in the Word of God will not pass unfulfilled.

If I thought the Bible was like that game of passing secrets, I wouldn't have become a Christian. That makes scripture completely unreliable.

Christ is our LORD, our Teacher. He says the Bible will be preserved until the end of time, I believe Him.

It was scripture that convinced me God exists, and its power over my spirit as I read is undeniable even to this very day, and I've been reading it over 40 years.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Well, this is your attempt to 'load' the question. I don't think anyone thinks that John looked or felt or imagined himself to be a tourist no matter how the scene on the beach unfolds. But you want the option to be more fearful than your truth and so you load it up to denigrate the other option by making it some absurd scenario. This is now the 3rd or 4th time that you've alluded to this other option as being John out on a walk on the beach in Waikiki. Why? The question is merely is John writing that 'he' was on the shore? Or is he writing that the beast was on the shore. Don't need a lot of gaslighting and window dressing to discuss the matter.

Now, as I have long explained to you, the NIV text resolves this issue for you. Yet, you don't think it's a reliable translation even though it handles your biggest, or at least your first, complaint against such translations.

Let me ask you a question: In how many places is the NIV text not aligned with the majority text? I mean, have you ever set a copy of the majority text, and that would not be the KJ translation, side by side and compared the differences? How many?


Can you give me 10 such details? And how they were reasoned away by circular reasoning?

God bless,
Ted

There are sites that point to NIV defects. I won't waste my time on your evasion. Where is your defense of the Dragon standing on the sea, with John saying "I saw" in juxtaposition?

Grammatically, the pronoun "he" refers to the Dragon in the verse before, you can't evade that. (I know you want to because the scholars who created that scene are stupid, to say the least).

Where is your exegesis of what the symbolism of the Dragon on the beach, doing nothing at all, means?

Symbolism always means something, what does it mean the "Dragon" just standing there.

Stop evading the point. I will keep insisting you answer. I want to see you defend the indefensible.

John and the Dragon on the beach like Bud-lite buddies, calmly gazing upon the sea....explain that symbolism, what does it mean?

I'll tell you what it means, "the scholarship that changed the Bible to create that scene, are among the stupidest people on the planet."

 

[GodsGrace]

I did NOT say "lot of allusions", I pointed to ONE of them in Rev. 13:1. No straw men please.

I did say details in scripture can be lost in the eclectic texts because they reason in circles. They choose the reading that best fits their understanding of the passage. If they got it wrong, as they did in Rev. 13:1, they can be completely off base.

You keep evading that proof I cited, how absurd it is the Dragon who "went off to make war" on believers, then shows up on the beach with John, like a tourist:

17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
NAU Revelation 13:1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, (Rev. 12:17-13:1 NAU)



This proves Scholars can be stupid on occasion, I do not want them deciding which are the words of God and which aren't.

You can trust them all you like, I don't.

As for your straw man, I never said we can't find allusions in the newer versions to the OT, I said Revelation 13:1 is clearly one allusion they tried to remove from scripture.

AND oddly, you keep avoiding that clear example of scholarly blindness and stupidity. The men you admire, are clearly fools in that text.

Why don't you defend their having the Dragon and John gazing upon the sea like Bud-lite buddies?

Why don't you show us how the eclectic versions teaching that absurdity, are superior to the Majority Text?

Where is your defense of them sir?

All I see is a straw man you proposed, to evade the issue.

Hi A
By allusion, do you mean fulfillment of prophecy?

I read your long post to me . Will reply later.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Have you ever played that game where you whisper something in the ear of the person sitting next to you and they continue to do the same to the next person until the last person down the line repeats what was given in the first person, but got it all wrong. That is the way we are with learning the word of God by those who got it wrong and it keeps being wrong until we are corrected, not by man, but by the Holy Spirit.

I ran out of my 30 minutes, wanted to add this:

But as I pointed out, John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit from birth didn't agree with what Christ was doing, and began to doubt. Christ corrected him of course and he repented (Luke 7:18-23).

Even the Angels dispute what prophecy means:

21 "But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.) (Dan. 10:21 NKJ)

12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-- things which angels desire to look into. (1 Pet. 1:12 NKJ)

But that should caution all, being "guided" by the Holy Spirit into truth does not subvert free will. We can resist the Holy Spirit:

"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. (Acts 7:51 NKJ)

The point is, only Scripture is Objective and the Holy Spirit will always agree with Scripture, He wrote it. That's why God wrote the Bible, so the man of God be equipped for every good work, including knowing the truth:

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)

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi A
By allusion, do you mean fulfillment of prophecy?

I read your long post to me . Will reply later.

No. An "allusion" calls something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.

So if I say, "Christ's coming is like lightening", you won't think I am saying Christ will turn into electrical lightning, you will realize I am alluding to this text:

27 "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. (Matt. 24:27 NKJ)

The ancients alluded to the OT often, quoting just a few key words and then their own. They expected their audience to know what they were speaking of.

John did that here, even making it "a game" saying anyone with Bible wisdom can solve it:

Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666. (Rev. 13:18 NKJ)

Its a riddle, the clues are in the way John words it. 666 is both the "number OF a man", and its part of a calculation that results in the same name. John is alluding to the verses that have 666 and point to the name Adonikam:

the sons of Adonikam, 666; (Ezr. 2:13 NAU)
the sons of Adonikam, 667; (Neh. 7:18 NAU)

Adonikam had 666 sons so 666 is "OF" him.
Adonikam's Father was named Adonikam, therefore his sons were 667. So if we calculate 667-1=666 we get the name "Adonikam."

This style of riddle was popular in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, its known as a "Janus Parallelism". If you want read more, go here:

Adonikam is the Name of the Beast having 666 meaning | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready 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

There is another example of scholarly blindness. They assume the difference in numbers was a copyist mistake, one says 667 the other 666. The Apostle John, who believes the Bible to be the very Word of God, doesn't see a mistake at all. He sees how he can reveal the name of the Beast without changing history, only those who believe the Bible will see it.

Not only that, its very likely John saw the difference as purposeful, that God intended to do it, so John could reveal the name of the Beast without changing history. Only those who believe the Bible, will believe Adonikam is his name.

 

[miamited]

Again you don't stand up for the newer versions. I understand, their corruption of the Bible is indefensible. But lest blindness persist, I will explain it:

17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
13:1 And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, (Rev. 12:17-13:1 NAU)

Both John and the Dragon are on the sea watching the Beast rise. The juxtaposition of the Dragon and John clearly implies they are together. That is the "plain reading" of the text.

Of course you will deny it, but Occam's Razor is against your denial. Parsimony is to be sought in sound interpretation, and you can't follow that hermeneutic because it destroys your argument.

Its not just they are standing there like tourists. There also is the matter of "for what purpose"?

The Dragon does nothing, which means the symbolism means nothing, is meaningless.

As Scripture symbolism is NEVER meaningless, the symbolism created by your foolish scholars cannot be scripture.


Defend your scholars sir, or admit they are blind fools leading the blind.

Honestly Alfred Persson I don't see the argument that you're making. You keep harping on this issue of the dragon and how it is portrayed in the various translations. I've already shown you that the NIV doesn't have that problem, but you continue to try and tell me that all other versions are corrupt. I don't see it.

I don't see that the 'Scripture symbolism' is somehow corrupted over this particular and specific passage of Scripture, between the various versions.

There are sites that point to NIV defects. I won't waste my time on your evasion. Where is your defense of the Dragon standing on the sea, with John saying "I saw" in juxtaposition?

Grammatically, the pronoun "he" refers to the Dragon in the verse before, you can't evade that. (I know you want to because the scholars who created that scene are stupid, to say the least).

Where is your exegesis of what the symbolism of the Dragon on the beach, doing nothing at all, means?

Symbolism always means something, what does it mean the "Dragon" just standing there.

Stop evading the point. I will keep insisting you answer. I want to see you defend the indefensible.

John and the Dragon on the beach like Bud-lite buddies, calmly gazing upon the sea....explain that symbolism, what does it mean?

I'll tell you what it means, "the scholarship that changed the Bible to create that scene, are among the stupidest people on the planet."

And there's really no there...there.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Honestly Alfred Persson I don't see the argument that you're making. You keep harping on this issue of the dragon and how it is portrayed in the various translations. I've already shown you that the NIV doesn't have that problem, but you continue to try and tell me that all other versions are corrupt. I don't see it.

I don't see that the 'Scripture symbolism' is somehow corrupted over this particular and specific passage of Scripture, between the various versions.

And there's really no there...there.

God bless,
Ted

Wrong, NIV has the problem:

17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring-- those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.
NIV Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. (Rev. 12:17-13:1 NIV)

You are doing "debate 101", you will refuse to concede any point, even "2+2=4".

There is no "there" in your replies, just sophistry.

I don't do endless "debate".

Have a nice day.

 

[miamited]

Have a nice day.

Hi Alfred Persson

thank you. You too.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Alfred Persson

Is that Hemet CA that you're bio references? I had a brother in law who lived there. Never been there myself, but my wife has and she says it's a fairly nice place. Hope you enjoy it.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi Alfred Persson

Is that Hemet CA that you're bio references? I had a brother in law who lived there. Never been there myself, but my wife has and she says it's a fairly nice place. Hope you enjoy it.

God bless,
Ted

Like the rest of California, the homeless are everywhere. Crime is up. This once was a quiet retirement city, no more. But there still are some great people here, so I agree with your wife.

 

[for_his_glory]

But as I pointed out, John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit from birth didn't agree with what Christ was doing, and began to doubt. Christ corrected him of course and he repented (Luke 7:18-23).

None of those verses say that John the Baptist did not agree with what Jesus was doing and began to doubt? John the Baptist already knew that Jesus was the Messiah come and actually wanted Jesus to baptize him, but Jesus said,
Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Matthew 3:13-17

John the Baptist told Andrew and John, who were the two disciples that followed John before Jesus called them, John 1:35-42, to go seek out Jesus to prove to themselves Jesus truly was the Messiah come, Luke 7:18-29.

This is why it is so important to have the full context.

 

[for_his_glory]

Its a riddle, the clues are in the way John words it. 666 is both the "number OF a man", and its part of a calculation that results in the same name. John is alluding to the verses that have 666 and point to the name Adonikam:

the sons of Adonikam, 666; (Ezr. 2:13 NAU)
the sons of Adonikam, 667; (Neh. 7:18 NAU)

Ezra Chapter 2 and Nehemiah Chapter 7 is only the numbering of people and the animals that came with them when they came out of captivity in the exile from Babylon. The number 666 has nothing to do with Rev 13:18.

 

[for_his_glory]

Alfred Persson and miamited has either one of you considered what the text says that the beast that John saw coming up out of the sea while he stood upon the sand of the sea was the red dragon (beast out of the sea) we read about in Rev 12.

Satan is now furious after being cast down to the ground having no more access to heaven, (this hasn't happened yet) and wants to devour the generational seed of Abraham in whom God made His covenant with in Genesis 12:1-3. John saw a beast (beast is often referred to as nations in scripture) rise up out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns and upon his horns ten crowns, (crowns denotes Kings) and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. The beast rises up out of the sea as the sea here is symbolic of people and nations as in a sea of humanity, Daniel Chapter 7:1-8; Revelation 17:15.

We have to also realize these were visions that John was given while he was a prisoner on the isle of Patmos and that he was not actually standing upon the sand of the sea.

 

[Alfred Persson]

None of those verses say that John the Baptist did not agree with what Jesus was doing and began to doubt? John the Baptist already knew that Jesus was the Messiah come and actually wanted Jesus to baptize him, but Jesus said,
Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Matthew 3:13-17

John the Baptist told Andrew and John, who were the two disciples that followed John before Jesus called them, John 1:35-42, to go seek out Jesus to prove to themselves Jesus truly was the Messiah come, Luke 7:18-29.

This is why it is so important to have the full context.

None of those verses say that John the Baptist did not agree with what Jesus was doing and began to doubt? John the Baptist already knew that Jesus was the Messiah come and actually wanted Jesus to baptize him, but Jesus said,
Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Matthew 3:13-17

John the Baptist told Andrew and John, who were the two disciples that followed John before Jesus called them, John 1:35-42, to go seek out Jesus to prove to themselves Jesus truly was the Messiah come, Luke 7:18-29.

This is why it is so important to have the full context.

The "full context" does not contradict the immediate context. It is clearly implied, when John's disciples tell him what Christ was doing it didn't fit what John believed the Messiah would do. He asked Jesus "do we look for another?"

16 Then fear came upon all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has risen up among us"; and, "God has visited His people."
17 And this report about Him went throughout all Judea and all the surrounding region.
18 Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things.
19 And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"
20 When the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying,`Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?'"
21 And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.
22 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.
23 "And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." (Lk. 7:16-23 NKJ)

Then Christ does miracles only God can do, to prove He is the Messiah to John.

That is what the text says, in context.