KJV Debate

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

farscape

Senior member
Jan 15, 2002
327
0
0
Normally I do not get involved in these types of debates but petrek's last few statements have caused me to respond.

If we are to be "led by the Holy Spirit", are we not supposed to have faith to rely on Him to not lead us astray. Some will say that having " His law written in our hearts" was for the Isrealites only, but was that not meant for the Church in particular.

Faith comes by HEARING, and HEARING by the word of God. Is not hearing an active word. If we are to hear, does that not mean that God must be SPEAKING? Is not speaking an active word also. If the Holy Spirit resides within the beleiver, than the whole of God's word already resides within that individual. He will not let His people run astray. If in their humanity (flesh) they should fall, is He not there to pick him up again like the Good Shephard?

When I first became a Christian 25 years ago, I ran into a similar group that was like-minded as he appears to be.

Statements such as: "What is the purpose of preaching if not to edify those that are unlearned in the things which are being taught.", were used to bludgeoun those that would not agree with them. "Saved out of the Catholic Church...", were words of distain and hate.
"Everything is sinful", is a lie. If 'it ' seperates me from God, then 'it' is sin, not everything seperates me from God.

For God so loved the WORLD, that He sent his only begotten Son that whosoever beleiveth on Him should not perish but have everasting life.

What is sin, but that which keeps us from having a RELATIONSHIP with God our Father, one that He has longed to have with us ever since the beginning. That is why we were created, and that is why He came to shed His Blood for US!!!

When I converse with God, and He with me, I don't hear Greek, Hebrew, or kj english. I hear Him in my tongue, in concepts that I understand. When I read, He speaks to me no matter what version I happen to be reading at the time. There have been times when I have gotten more inspiration through The Living Bible than through the KJ, and I am fully cognisant that it is a paraphrase. He has spoken to me while watching the scifi channel, and I know that can't possibly be construed as a scriptural source. I refuse to put God in a box because he will ALWAYS show me that He is much bigger than ANYTHING that I can put Him into.


 

BooneRebel

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2001
2,229
0
0
Petrek, what are you trying to prove? What's the answer? It seems as though you want to persuade others from believing in the (insert version here) Bible, but what is your alternative? Should we not believe anything at all?

Or should we study the most accurate texts we can find. I think it's foolhardy to design your entire life around a single word or phrase in the Bible much in the same way I think it's foolish to fault the Bible or Christianity because you can find grammatical errors in it. Read the entire thing and I think you'll get the 'point', regardless of changes that have been made through the several translations.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"Petrek, what are you trying to prove? What's the answer? It seems as though you want to persuade others from believing in the (insert version here) Bible, but what is your alternative? Should we not believe anything at all?

Or should we study the most accurate texts we can find. I think it's foolhardy to design your entire life around a single word or phrase in the Bible much in the same way I think it's foolish to fault the Bible or Christianity because you can find grammatical errors in it. Read the entire thing and I think you'll get the 'point', regardless of changes that have been made through the several translations."


BooneRebel:

That the modern versions of the Bible are corrupt and untrustworthy

The KJV Bible

That is correct, the KJV Bible.

Trust in the KJV Bible as the providentially preserved, verbally inspired, infallible word of God in the english language.

No need to study the text when the KJV Bible I hold in my hand is the word of God.

I agree, No scripture is of private interpretation.

These are not grammatical errors, and to suggest such is an outright lie.

The strange theology which exists today, implies otherwise.

Dave
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
zimmie6576:

"The Bible was completed over a thousand years ago, with the Old Testament being well over 2000 years old. It would be impossible for people today to even begin to understand what was being said in the method of speaking or writing from that long ago."

The Bible was completed about 2000 years ago. May I remind you that God is the Author of the Bible.

"Second, the newer versions (I think after the 1970s or so) versions of the KJ Bible have removed every instance of the name of God. I have seen an older version (from the 50s) and it had the name, which is Jehovah. This is well documented, and is not only believed by the Jehovah's Witnesses (of which, I must say, I am one). Basically, the newer KJV call Jehovah by what He is (God, not a God but THE God). That would be like calling people around you "person" or "human". I don't get why the name was removed from the KJV. It is still in my version. "

Got a link???

Dave


 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Doc, there was a specific reason why I didn't refer to myself as a KJV onlyist. Because I don't believe most of what you wrote they believe, which is the same reason why I don't classify myself as a fundamentalist, because I don't believe much of what maetryx says fundamentalists believe. For the same reason I don't call myself an evangelist, protestant, etc. I believe that the Bible that I hold in my hand (the KJV) is the pure word of God and is fully trustworthy for sound doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. In other words, when God says Noah lived to be 950 years old, that means without question that Noah lived to be 950 years old. God's statement is direct and to the point, and I trust God completely.

Dave
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Considering this:

"Hit the road Johnny Reb or would you rather I addressed you as Polgara?"

And this:

"Hit the road Polgara or would you rather I addressed you as Johnny Reb?"

located here

God says:

"Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just." Romans 3:8


And considering this:

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:5

I respond

" If, at any time, one has to look at the Hebrew/Greek to get the real meaning, then the KJV is not Canon. The use of Betulah as Virgin is just plain wrong in Deut and in Joel. You can't look at the KJV and get the real meaning, you have to look at the Hebrew."

a) One can, but does not have to look at the Hebrew/Greek to get the real/intended meaning. There are many other ways to find the meaning:

Look at the surrounding passages

Look at the surrounding chapters

Look to other areas in Scripture where the words are used, or where the issue is also spoken of

Look to Bible dictionary

Look at commentaries, etc.

b) To say that virgin in Deut and Joel is "just plain wrong", is a matter of personal opinion, one in which I disagree, and I believe, already addressed in a previous post.


"What is the Law? The New Testament church is not under Law, but under Grace. That being said, this verse guarantees that the Law will remain until the end. It is not intended as a guarantee of the Christian Canon, and to use it as such is to be on very dangerous ground."

The Law is Scripture, and yes, Scripture, as noted in numerous other passages will remain to the end.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Matthew 24:35



"The JohnnyReb translation of the MT is:

Saul was the son of a year when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel.

(NAS) "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty- two years over Israel."

(NIV) "Saul was [thirty] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel [forty-]two years."

(KJV) "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . . " (Original marginal note at "one year": "Heb. the son of one year in his reigning.")

You can see from the above that the KJV has the better translation, but some would argue that it is nonsensical, and therefore they changed it (NIV & NAS). Even the KJV is a bit free-n-loose here trying to make the verse make sense, thus the need for the marginal note.

Petrek - Do you notice that the original KJV had a margin note here giving an alternate interpretation. How can this be if the KJV is the English Canon?"


The 1611 translation had a marginal note, and that is precisely where the note has stayed. At no time was a marginal note (commentary) introduced into the word of God, a fact which does not hold true for the modern versions. Nonetheless, one need only read the preceeding chapter to understand the verse.



"Another point of major contention is in Judges 18:30, where most manuscripts say "son of Manasseh" The name Manasseh is very interesting. You see, what you have in the MT is a suspended nun (Hebrew Letter). This is almost superscriptish right in the middle of the name. Without this hanging nun the name is Mosheh (Moses).

This word is one of the four that has a suspended letter. Here the letter , nun (n), is written partly in the line and partly above the line, to show that originally it formed no part of the word, but was put in to make it spell "Manasseh" instead of "Moses". Jonathan was the grandson of Moses, (his contemporary Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, being mentioned in 20:28). This was done for two reasons: (1) to spare the honour of Moses' memory and name; (2) to put sin upon one who committed so gross a sin. The Talmud gives this latter as the reason. Jonathan's name is omitted in 1 Chronicles 23:15, 16, and 26:24. The Chaldee paraphrase says that "Shebuel", there substituted, is meant for Jonathan after his repentance and restoration. Shebuel = "he returned to God". The Authorized Version follows Septuagint and Chaldee by putting "Manasseh" in the text; Revised Version follows Vulgate, and those codices and early editions which have "n" suspended, by putting "Moses" in the text and "Manasseh" in the margin".

Response here


"Majority Text Versus The Textus Receptus

In 1977 Pickeringev predicted that "the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the Original [=Majority Text] in something over a thousand places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the critical texts will be found to differ from the Original in some five thousand places, many of them being serious differences."

There is much to criticize in the way this prediction is stated; nevertheless the quantitative aspect of Pickering's guess is on the mark. In this writer's examination of Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text he has counted 1,838 differences between it and the Textus Receptus. This is indeed "something over a thousand" differences! Most notably the Majority Text excluded Acts 8:37 and the Comma Johanneum (the Textus Receptus's rendering of 1 John 5:7-8 with its Trinitarian formula). As well, in the last six verses of Revelation, which Erasmus had to translate into Greek from Latin, there are 17 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.

The fact of almost 2,000 differences between these two texts, many of them quite significant, is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it should be rather disconcerting to Textus Receptus advocates who have been depending on Hodges's scholarship for some time. On the other hand it cries out for a fresh look, by New Testament students, at the Byzantine text-type, which has been seen only through a glass darkly in the printed editions of the Textus Receptus."



Defect #4: "The editors stated: ?For the EVIDENCE of the MAJORITY TEXT, the present edition rests HEAVILY upon the information furnished by HERMON VON SODEN in his Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (1 1/2/3, 1911, II, 1913).... only RARELY can von Soden's data be corrected with confidence.' [op. cit., p.xv].

Rather than going to the MANUSCRIPTS themselves-either uncial, papyrus, or cursive-Hodges, Farstad, and Nelson Publishers have taken the quick, easy, and, I might add, slipshod and shortcut method of taking SECONDARY EVIDENCE rather than PRIMARY EVIDENCE in determining their so-called ?MAJORITY GREEK TEXT.' There are at least THREE dangers involved in this decision of theirs: (a) They relied upon another man's research, rather than on their own. Hence, there might be many errors contained therein. (B) Von Soden's textual apparatus did not include 100% of the kinds of Greek manuscript evidence which should be included and was therefore not broad enough to be thorough. (c) Von Soden's textual apparatus did not even include 100% of the evidence in the areas that he did include and was therefore incomplete and partial only.

To illustrate (b) above, let me remind you that there are FOUR types of Greek manuscript evidence for the New Testament text. The numbers given for each are those of Kurt Aland as of 1967, which is a close enough approximation for our purposes here: (1) PAPYRUS fragments [81]; (2) UNCIALS [267]; (3) CURSIVES [2,764]; and (4) LECTIONARIES [2,143]. The grand total is 5,255. The Hodges-Farstad-Nelson text, via von Soden's apparatus, made use only of some of the (1) PAPYRUS fragments; (2) UNCIALS, and (3) CURSIVES. They made NO USE WHATSOEVER of the readings from the 2,143 LECTIONARIES by their own admission (cf. p. xviii). In other words, they completely, willfully, and very foolishly DISREGARDED 2,143/5,255ths [40%] of the manuscript evidence out of hand and from the very first!

To illustrate (c) above, even in these three different areas of text which von Soden did make use of (PAPYRI, UNCIALS, & CURSIVES), the Hodges-Farstad-Nelson text is woefully deficient and partial in that it did not even use 100% of the data available from these above three sources. The editors allude to only 8 of the 81 PAPYRUS fragments (cf. p. xvi), and to only 4 out of the 267 UNCIALS (cf. p. xvi). In discussing the von Soden apparatus with a textual critic favorable to the present work (M.R.), he informed me that von Soden did NOT allude to all 2,763 CURSIVES either, but only about 1,600 to 1,900 of them (if my memory serves me correctly as to the number). The box score, therefore, in even these three areas where they did attempt to use the Greek manuscript evidence available to them is as follows: 8/81 PAPYRI (9.87%); 4/267 UNCIALS (1.49%); and 1900/2764 CURSIVES (68.74%). They made use of 1985/3112ths of the available resources from these three areas (63.78%). When you include the LECTIONARIES (2143) which they eliminated entirely, you find they used only 1985/5255ths of the available resources or no more than 37.77% of the available textual data. I ask you, my THINKING friend, their text is a "MAJORITY" of WHAT?!!"

DEFECTS IN THE SO-CALLED "MAJORITY GREEK TEXT" by Rev. D.A. Waite, Pamphlet, Defect #4.(All capitalization, underling, etc. was in the original)


In closing then, I would like to thank the moderators for exposing such wickedness, and again remind the reader of what God says: "Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just."

Dave

 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." 1 Thessalonians 5:1-4

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they recieved not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:13-15

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24:46-47

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
To start then, in order to make it easier on the reader to distinguish my response I will use ">" to denote what I say. I'll begin then with this:

"You critique me for pointing you to a web site that opposes KJV only beliefs and yet cut and paste entire articles from people who espouse KJV only beliefs. (For your information, I have read the preface to the original KJV long before the excellent link provided by Josephus.) Please point out where the web site I provided you misquoted the preface or took it out of context."

The article that I am responding to can be found here

"THEY BELIEVED THE AUTHORITY WAS IN THE ORIGINALS
On page 3 of THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER, the King James translators said, "The original there being from heaven, not from the earth, the author's being God, not man, the editor, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles."(See Appendix A, quote 1) Also on the bottom of page 9 and on the top of page 10 they said that all truth must be tried by the original tongues, the Hebrew and Greek. So the King James translators said the authority was in the originals. This is what Christians have believed throughout Church history."

> Undoubtably, when one is translating the Holy Scriptures the final authority must rest with the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Translators looked at previous English versions as well as some other languages to get the best sense of the verse, but the final decision was based on the original tongues, the Hebrew and the Greek.

"On the other hand, the KJV Only group says, "No one has the originals. Have you ever seen the originals? No. You must trust the King James translation as the final authority." This assertion contradicts the KJV translators."

> What absurdity! I am not the one saying that inerrancy refers only to the original autographs. And to say that one must trust the KJV as final authority because the originals don't exist is just plain foolish, the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and therefore those Hebrew and Greek manuscripts must still exist and can be used in the future to produce "one principal good one" if and when the English language changes so much so that God sees fit to produce a "principal good one" other than the KJV.

"I do not have the original ten dollar bill but I will take all the copies you will give me. I have never seen the original constitution of the United States but thank God I have all the benefits of it. So we do not have the original copy the apostles wrote but we have around 5,000 copies of it and every word of God has been preserved in them. We do not have the original manuscripts but we do have the original words. We do not need the original copy, the first copy. If we had it some people would make an idol of it, I'm sure. By the way, no one has the original copy (the first manuscript) of the 1611 KJV, though many copies of the first printing exist."

> I completely agree with this statement "So we do not have the original copy the apostles wrote but we have around 5,000 copies of it and every word of God has been preserved in them. We do not have the original manuscripts but we do have the original words. We do not need the original copy, the first copy. If we had it some people would make an idol of it, I'm sure."

"The point is, the KJV translators believed the final authority was in the original Hebrew and Greek, not in any translation, including their own. "The original being from Heaven?The author being God, not men.""

> I believe the KJV translators were speaking in regards to making a translation, ie: regardless of how the previous English translations or other foreign language translation translated a passage or word, the final decision was based on the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. As well, if the Translators did believe the final authority rested in the originals only, what would be the point of making a translation at all!??? If one needs to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to be able to trust in the Authority of the word of God, and to be able to honestly say "thus sayeth the Lord", why bother translating into the language of the people if they can't trust the translation as Authoritative.

"THEY BELIEVED TRANSLATORS WERE NOT INSPIRED
On page 4 the KJV translators said the Septuagint translators were interpreters.(See Appendix A, quote 2) They were not prophets. They did many things as learned men but yet as men they stumbled and fell. So the King James translators believed that translation was a purely human work. They made mistakes."

> I agree that only the original men who penned the scripture did so under the direct inspiration of God in regards to the words. However I disagree with what he implies when he says the translation is "purely human work" as it denies the fact that God is alive and well and was able to guide those men as to which words were His. God does not directly inspire the translators as to the exact words to be used, but he does guide them as to which words are His and are to be translated.

"THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN CONDEMNING OTHER VERSIONS
On page 6 the King James Translators refer to all the other English versions they had in that day. They say, "Do we condemn the ancient?? We are so far from condemning any of their labors, that translated before us, either in this land or beyond the sea. We acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of His church."(See Appendix A, quote 3) So the King James translators did not believe in condemning other translations. We dare not condemn any translation, they say, unlike many people today."

> The English language at the time of those early editions was still undergoing growing pains, as well, those translators did not have the same access to manuscripts as the KJV translators did, but they did the best they could with what they had for the "building and furnishing" of Christ's church. This is a far cry from what exists today.


"The Wycliff English Bible came out in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1525, the Coverdale in 1535, the Rogers Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva in 1560 and the Bishops in 1568. So when the King James Bible came out in 1611 there were many English translations just as there are today. But the King James translators did not condemn any. They did not consider other versions to be a curse but said "they had been raised up by God for the furnishing of His church." They did not believe in pointing out errors and belittling other versions of the Bible. This applied to English Translations and "those beyond the sea." They would be totally against attacking other translations like many people are doing today.""

> This is just utter nonsense. To suggest the the KJV translators would not "attack" versions of the Bible which have been intentionally corrupted and perverted in order to create confusion and destroy the Faith through such corruption God's word is ridiculous.

"THEY BELIEVED ALL TRANSLATIONS WERE THE WORD OF GOD
On page 7, the King James translators say, "Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God."(See Appendix A, quote 4) When they say "meanest" they mean the poorest, the worst. So they believed that every translation was the word of God, no matter how many mistakes it had. This is the exact opposite of those who believe the King James is the only Bible for the English speaking people. Those who revere the King James translators so much believe just the opposite of what the translators themselves believed."

> More vanity. He initially translates "meanest" as poorest or worst, with which I agree, but then goes on to use it to mean intentionally corrupted or perverted, which is just plain false. Show me one instance in Scripture where God even remotely suggests that we as Christians are supposed to trust something that was intentionally corrupted and perverted in order to deceive men who wish to please God.

"The translators gave several illustrations to make their point. They said the king's speech translated into another language is still the king's speech. A person can be a good person and yet have some imperfections. Someone can be a nice looking person and yet have warts or freckles, they said. And so, likewise, a translation of the Bible may have mistakes but it is still the word of God. They never said that God had promised us a perfect translation in English."

> He's right. God did not promise us a perfect Bible, because what is perfect to one person is imperfect to another, but God did promise us an infallible Bible. Here as well as in the above paragraph I wonder what he means by "mistakes"? Does he mean errors or does he mean not the best. Allow me to illustrate:

A man who has had 5 years of schooling compared to a man with 40 years would produce a far meaner translation than the latter, but would not necessarily contain errors. The centre fielder could also be correctly referred to as:
1) The one who is in the field with a person on one side and a person on the other.
2) The one who is in the middle of the field.
3) The one 30 paces behind the second baseman.
4) The middle fielder
5) The centralized fielder
6) The core fielder
7) The nucleus fielder
8) The interior fielder
but would be incorrectly referred to as:
1) The first baseman.
2) Omitted.

"This is a very serious point. Because if the poorest translation is the word of God, then if we attack it we are attacking God's Word. Many people are doing this today. They are blaspheming God's Word. The King James translators would not belittle and attack the NIV or the NASB as many people do. They had more sense.
Dear reader, be careful how you attack other versions. The King James translators believed you are attacking the Word of God. Do not blaspheme God's Word or support those who do."

> Reading this just makes me sick. He attempts to frighten people by saying that if they oppose corrupted and perverted versions of the Gospel they are blaspheming the word of God. Dear reader do not be swayed by such idle and vain threats, rather try to find one instance in the Gospel where God instructs us to trust intentionally corrupt and perverted versions of the Gospel. There are number of passages which clearly instruct us not to trust in such things, here are a few of them:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

"Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? Saith the LORD. I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? Saith the LORD. Is not my word like as a fire? Saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith." Jeremiah 23:24-31

"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galations 1:1-9


"JESUS AND THE APOSTLES DID NOT ATTACK BAD TRANSLATIONS
On page 7 the King James translators said that the Septuagint, or the Seventy, "was faulty in many places. It descended from the original and did not come near it in grandeur or majesty." In other words, the Greek translation which Jesus and the apostles used was not a good translation but they did not try to tear down people's confidence in it. "Yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it! Nay! They used it." (page 7 & 8)(See Appendix A, quote 5)
The point is that Jesus and the apostles had a faulty translation but they never put it down. They used it and quoted from it. They did not go around tearing down bad translations as some people do today.
Do not blaspheme and attack God's Word just because the translators made some mistakes. Jesus and the apostles did not believe in attacking other translations. The King James translators did not believe in doing that either."

>Here then is where his reasoning shows its true vanity. The Apostles used ONE TRANSLATION, the Septuagint, even though it was not absolutely perfect, it was a mean translation, far meaner in comparison to the KJV but the Apostles themselves used it to avoid confusion. They did not create new versions (which they most assuredly could have), they did not look to other versions (which inevitably existed), but used the ONE TRANSLATION, the Septuagint, to avoid confusing the church of Christ. The Apostles did not tear down the ONE TRANSLATION which they recognized as the translation appointed by God for their time, they did not attack the ONE TRANSLATION provided by God. The translators sought to make "ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE", ONE TRANSLATION that the whole English speaking church of Christ could use to avoid confusion. As well as the fact that the modern versions are based off of an intentionally deceitful corrupted and perverted Greek text using critical theory which treats the Bible just like another book and not a book which is under continuous attack from Satan, consider that the KJV was the Bible used to bring about the greatest period of Evangelism the world has seen since the first few centuries after Christ, I would say, the KJV is the God appointed version for our time. I hope to in a future post discuss the scholarship of the KJV translators, and the methods they used to make it as perfect as possible.

"THEY BELIEVED IN MAKING NEW TRANSLATIONS OFTEN
On page 8 the King James translators talk about making new translations. They ask, "Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?" Then they say, "That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with."(See Appendix A, quote 6) It is the translator's business to continually update the language, not because God's Word is outdated, but because English changes. The English language has changed some in my lifetime. Young people do not use the same expressions as when I was a teenager. In the book, THE KING JAMES BIBLE WORD BOOK, by Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle, the authors list 827 words that are obsolete or archaic."

> Lies, lies, and more lies. Amending a previous version is NOT making a new version. The translators of the early English editions wanted the people to have the word of God in their hands in a language they understood, and put it out as soon as they felt comfortable that it could be trusted to represent to the best of their capabilities with the manuscripts they had to available to them. For them to go back and check their work and make amends where they, through initial oversight needed to, or to add more books to the Bible as more manuscripts became available to them is NOT making a new translation.

"Translators are not supposed to make one translation and go into retirement. It is their business to make new translations and keep them updated. That is the reason the King James translators immediately started to revise the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629 (when they left out the Apocrypha)."

> It is not the translators business to play around with the word of God, it is the translators business to ensure that the translation is free from human error.

"After reading what the KJV translators have said, I feel sure they would favor the New King James Version over the 1769 version that we use today. They said the Bible should be in the common vernacular of the people. (Page 11)
By the way, the King James Version is a British translation, not an American translation. There are a few English words that have a different meaning from ours. For example, if you go into a restaurant in England and ask for a napkin, they will give you a baby diaper.""

> After reading what the KJV translators said I feel sure they would not favour the New King James Version. Was this man born walking, talking, and with a head full of knowledge???? Does a book such as the Bible, filled with many words, need no study???? Did this man not study if not for the better part of 12 years and more to make such idleness seem important????

>There are words I come across in everyday life that I am forgetful or ignorant of their specific wording in meaning, do I demand the author change his writ to fit my ignorance, how self righteous to think the such vain thoughts.

>Does this man think the English to be so dumb and foolish as to bring you a baby diaper if you ask for a napkin???? I spent a few months in England and to be honest they are not that deft.

>Or what of this fact, do the English when reading the KJV understand thusly:

"And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a baby diaper" Luke 19:20

"And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a baby diaper..." John 11:44

"And the baby diaper, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." John 20:7

>So it's a British translation that means baby diaper rather than napkin, yet if that is the reality, then why is napkin used, where the translators not British!??? Surely this man doth jest with such idle nonsense.


"THEY WERE NOT INSPIRED THEY SIMPLY REVISED
The KJV translators said on page 9, "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one." (See Appendix A, quote 7) In other words, they said that the translations that England already had by William Tyndale, Coverdale and others were good translations. Their purpose was never to make a new translation, they said. Their purpose was to build on the labors and works of others and try to improve them. The KJV translators said the others were good translations and they tried to make them better so England could have a common Bible. They certainly succeeded in that. Thank God for the way the King James Bible has been used in so many wonderful ways. But remember, the translators did not set out to make a new inspired version. All they did was revise and update. They took the Tyndale, Cloverdale, Geneva Bible, the Pilgrim Bible and the Bishops Bible, and updated them to make a composite Bible called the 1611 King James version. That was their purpose all along. Some people think they were inspired to make a perfect translation which would be "God's preserved word for the English speaking people." This belief contradicts the King James translators. Their purpose was "to make good ones better or to make one principal good one.""

>I would disagree with the implications of the statement: "All they did was revise and update.", However I completely agree with the notion that the KJV translators were not inspired and set out to make "one principal good one" by the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

"There is no hint the translators thought they were inspired or anything but human translators trying to do their best. They said, "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators?neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered?" (page 10)"

>I would disagree with the notion that they were "but human translators", is not God the God of the Living, does not God guide those that seek to please Him alone with obedient hearts.

> As well I should add, that taking Christ out of His word, creating a gender neutral Bible, etal, are clearly Satanic in origin.


"THEY BELIEVED IN PUTTING VARYING READINGS IN THE MARGIN
On page 10 we read, "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scripture for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point." (See Appendix A, quote 8)
Critics object to the marginal readings in modern versions. The KJV translators included them in the 1611 version and in the TO THE READER section that we are considering now. They said a person's judgment was not sound on this point if they disagreed."

>Here is their full statement:
"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their everywhere-plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground), Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin (which though it be not altogether the same thing so that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way), but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace."

>And here too is what Hills says:

"The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of them according to Scrivener. To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added during the 17th and 18th centuries, and all these variants still appear in the margins of British printings of the King James Version. In the special providence of God, however, the text of the King James Version has been kept pure. None of these variant readings has been interpolated into it. Of the original 37 variants some are introduced by such formulas as, "Many ancient copies add these words"; "Many Greek copies have"; "Or, as some copies read"; "Some read". Often, however, the reading is introduced simply by "Or", thus making it hard to tell whether a variant reading or an alternative translation is intended." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pg 220


"THEY DID NOT BELIEVE VARYING TRANSLATIONS AFFECTED DOCTRINE
The KJV translators said on page 10, "It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment." (See Appendix A, quote 9)
Because every Bible doctrine is mentioned over and over, it is not possible for a mistranslation in one place to change the teaching of Scripture. No Bible doctrine is dependent on one passage. For example, the Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in over 300 places. If a passage or two were incorrectly translated or left out, still the Bible is clear, Jesus is coming again.
The KJV translators understood this truth and said the various readings did not affect "doctrinal points but in matters of less moment.""

> Here, he just flat out lies when he says "Because every Bible doctrine is mentioned over and over". The translators state quite clearly that in regards to SALVATION a mistranslation in one place will do no harm: "It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment." In regards to SALVATION a mistranslation will do no harm, because in regards to SALVATION the Scriptures are plain.

> I agree completely with the Translators on this point and would personally go even further to say that men can be Saved by reading even the most corrupt or perverted version in existence, because with God all things are possible. In regards to SALVATION a mistranslation, mistranslations, omission, or omissions can be overcome by the will of God, by the pricking of the Holy Spirit, however, in "matters of less moment" (Doctrine unnecessary for Salvation, but no less the Truth and necessary for Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) such Satanic attacks most certainly do harm.


"THEY SAID A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS WERE NECESSARY
Many People today are "King James Only." The KJV translators certainly were not. They said on page 10 that a "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures?must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." (See Appendix A, quote 10)
There you have it from the KJV translators themselves. They believed in using other trans-lations. They "do good." They are "necessary."
Certainly other translations have helped me to understand many passages in God's word. Using other versions is one of the best study helps there is. KJV advocates would deprive God's people of this help."

> The translators were translators, they sought to translate. They sought to find out the sense of the Scripture and then translate as best as possible from one language into another. They looked at the various ways men had translated the verse and then they translated from the Greek and Hebrew into the best English word for word equivalent. Other translations "do good" are "necessary" for the purpose of translation. And most importantly they succeeded in their Godly desire to produce "one principal good one" for Christ's church that today can still be trusted completely in all manner of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

> KJV advocates such as myself seek no deprivation towards God's people. What I and I'm sure others like minded as myself seek is unity, cohesion, and clarity. When I sit down for a Bible study with other Christian's and we look at a verse, I want us all to see and hear the same verse. I don't want one person seeing one verse, another seeing another verse, another seeing another verse, and yet another seeing no verse at all. How can such a Bible study be considered anything but confusing, how can we build on our knowledge of God when we are unsure as to what God said, if He said anything at all!???? Where is the unity in such confusion, did not God say, I am "not the author of confusion, but of peace". What of the men that God raised and raises up for the building and furnishing of His church, who preach. What of the Commentaries of such men, or the Bible Dictionaries, or what of Bible Studies themselves.

> Satan is well aware that the best way to destroy something is from within, and it has worked quite effectively. Men will say that because I stand for ONE VERSION, the KJB, I seek division, yet the exact opposite is true. I seek to have men see the same words spoken by the Lord God Almighty, not to have some men see, straight words, others, words to the right or to the left, or yet others, no words at all, the Alpha and Omega is above such confusion.


"THEY BELIEVED SCRIPTURE SHOULD BE IN COMMON LANGUAGE
Many people today think the Bible should be in old, out dated English. They object to a Bible that reads like a newspaper, in modern English.
I hate to burst your bubble but the KJV translators believed the Bible should be in modern English. The 1611 KJV was in the most up to date English when it came out.
The KJV translators said on page 11, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." (See Appendix A, quote 11) They had just said how they avoided language that "darken the sense." The translators were clear, they wanted to put the scripture in the vernacular of the person on the street. They wanted the language to be so simple and up to date it could be understood by "even the very vulgar" (common, simple or uneducated). They would certainly be supportive of the modern English versions today."

>Here is the quote of which he refers:

"Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

> I hate to burst your bubble, but the KJB was not in the most up to date English of the time. At that time they were using the words "you" and "we", as is attested to both in the introduction and in the body of Scripture itself, but the translators choose not to use those words exclusively because their concern was in translating the word of God in the most precise manner possible, regardless of public opinion.

> Do I on occasion read the Financial Times, yes. Do I understand much of it, no. Yet it is a common newspaper.

> Do I read the daily paper and come across words and phrases which pass by my knowledge, yes. Yet it is the common newspaper read by all, even the very vulgar.

> The translators wanted a Bible that could be understood by people who speak the English language, and that is precisely what they accomplished with the completion of the King James Bible in 1611. I can pick up the King James Bible and read it. It is in English, and it is understandable even by me who admittedly is not a learned man, as learned men go, but I know how to read English and that is what the King James Bible is, it is a Bible written in English. Admittedly there are some words in the King James Bible that I have trouble with and take the time to look up to get a more precise understanding of them, but that is to be expected when dealing with a Book that is (at least the one before me) 1581 pages of small print, and contains a history of the world from beginning to end. And as I noted above, even the daily paper (and for that matter "best selling" books) contain words and phrases hard to be understood.


"CONCLUSION
What a shame today that so many exalt the KJV translators to lofty heights and yet contradict everything they stood for when it comes to Bible translations. What inconsistency!
Review what these wise men said. It is the same thing Christians have believed down through the centuries. You would be wise to stand with them and not with the modern fanatics who go contrary to the very translators they depend upon so much."

>Those with eyes to see and ears to hear can decide for themselves who is standing behind the word of God, and the translators who faithfully translated the word of God from the Hebrew and Greek into the English language for the "building and furnishing of His church", who sought to please God not men.

Christ is King
Dave

 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"You say that you will accept translations from godly men. When I provide them, you point out how easily godly men can err. Yet you ignore clear cases where the godly men who translated the KJV did err. Rather than address them, you will say that I would have you believe that thesauruses and dictionaries do not exist, or that ?unicorn? is an appropriate translation for ?wild ox? for today?s readers."

Me and Athanasius did discuss this in a pm, but I must still answer it here in the open forum.

Godly men are not worldly men but they are still men. I trust what men who seek to please God rather than men do, but they are still men and do err, nonetheless, it is their obedience to God that allows God to use them for His will even though they are men and thusly are not always perfect.

It is the opinion of yourself and others who believe that the King James Bible contains errors, it is my opinion that the King James Bible contains no errors, what you and others believe to be errors, I and others see as matters of personal opinion and not errors as such.

As Athanasius already knows, the reason why I say that he would have me believe that theasauruses and dictionaries do not exist is because he says that a word must always be translated the same way, but if that is the reality then there would be no need for dictionaries and theasauruses to define the various meanings and synonyms possible for the same word. "Unicorn" is an appropriate translation for wild ox, especially for a wild ox with one horn as the word implies.

Dave

 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re "By the way, you make a false association between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text. There are places where they differ because Erasmus did not have complete manuscripts to work with."

I believe this is why they are separate and not the same. In other words if the Byzantine text were the Textus Receptus then it wouldn't be the Textus Receptus it would be the Byzantine text. Or vice versa. The fact of the matter is that the Textus Receptus follows the Byzantine text type and this is why it is also referred to as the Byzantine text, even though it is not the Byzantine text as it's name (Textus Receptus) implies.

Dave
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Athanasius wrote:

"Plus, there are some few places where the critical text strengthens what I am sure you would view to be orthodox doctrine. For example, consider John 1:18. The main debate between readings is ?only begotten son? versus ?only begotten god.? The Greek for ?only begotten? is ?monogenes.? The Aposlte John uses it only of Jesus and it is one root word that formed the concept of ?eternal generation.? In other words, the Word (not the Scriptures, but the pre-incarnate Christ) is the ?Logos? or ?Logic? or ?Reason? of God and is co-eternal with the Father and the unique generation/manifestation of the Father. He is ?God seen.? To say that there was a time when the Word was not is to say that there was a time when God Himself was devoid of reason. But when ?Son? is inserted as the reading instead of ?God,? it suggests that Jesus is a son in the sense that Isaac was a son of Abraham. As if the Father existed before the Son. So, which rendering is better? The Textus Receptus says ?Son? but P66 (circa 200 AD), P75 (200?s), Irenaeus (2nd Century), Origen (3rd century), and the Didache (115 AD) all say ?God.?

In the Greek, the spelling between ?God? and ?Son? is very close, and easily obscured. But no where in John 1:1-18, except in the disputed text, does John mention ?Son,? whereas he mentions ?God? eight times. Keep in mind that the Didache was written only a few short years after the Gospel of John itself. In fact, in some early versions of the Bible, it was included as a book thought to be inspired.

But if one studies church history, one understands how important ?monogenes theos? was to understanding the eternality of the Word as a manifestation of the Father?s Eternal Being.

Does either rendering promote heresy? No. But unbiased evidence lends itself to ?theos? (God) instead of ?huios? (Son). Theos is more consistent with the immediate context, it is better attested amongst early manuscripts and church fathers that predate the ?heretical writings? of the late 300?s that proliferated in Egypt, and it sheds light on the crucial early church understanding of the eternal generation of the Word and the Word?s co-eternality with the Father."

and:

"You provide no evidence that the Didache or Irenaeus erred except that their reading differs from the Textus Receptus. Rather, you missed the whole point about John 1:18. The emphasis is on ?monogenes,? which is talking about ?unique generation? or ?unique manifestation.? So, ?monogenes theos? is a perfectly logical translation, as it should be understood as ?the unique and seen manifestation of God.? This is an emphatic point in John?s writings, a point he re-emphasizes in John 12:45, John 14:9, and 1 John 1:1-2. If the proper translation is ?son,? then who did Adam and Eve see in the garden? Who did Moses see in the Burning Bush? Who did Abraham converse with on the plains beside Sodom and Gomorrah? John says, no one has ever seen God at any time.? Therefore, what they saw was not God the Father, but the Word or Revelation of God as he chose to reveal Himself at that time. In the fulness of time, this ?Word? was incarnated fully and forever in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. In each case, it was the ?Unique and Seen Manifestation of God,? i.e., the Word. This is something the early church fully grapsed, a church that supports the ?monogenes theos? rendering.

Perhaps you missed the point because you are not aware of early church history. ?Monogenes Theos? is a concept that was revealed through John that was fundamental in the early church. In fact, I can point you to many of the earliest church fathers who built upon it, from Ignatius to Justin Martyr to Athenagoras to Theophilus of Antioch to the real Athanasius. The ?Textus Receptus? was not available to these men. If only the Textus Receptus is in any way legitimate, than the very men that God used to collect and preserve the Canon and the key doctrines of the Christian faith themselves did not have the Word of God, if your reasoning were valid."



I think it's obvious who the Old Testament Prophets saw, they saw the pre-incarnate Christ, the Son, the Word, one part of the triune God. From my standpoint, to replace Son with God in John 1:18 creates a nonsensical verse, and I would agree with Hills when he says it promotes the heresy that the Word and the Son are two distinct Beings. As well, I simply do not get the impression by the use of the word Son in the verse that Christ and the Father were at one time separate. Here's what Hills says:

"John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him."

This verse exhibits the following four-fold variation:
(1) The only begotten Son, Traditional Text, Latin versions, Curetonian Syriac.
(2) only begotten God, Pap66, Aleph B C L, WH.
(3) the only begotten God, Pap 75.
(4) (the) only begotten, read by one Latin manuscript.

The first reading is the genuine one. The other three are plainly heretical. Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely Valentinus. Burgon pointed out that the first time John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines of Valentinus. This quotation is found in a fragment entitled Excerpts from Theodotus, which dates from the 2nd century. R. P. Casey (1934) translates it as follows:

The verse, "in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God," the Valentinians understand thus, for they say that "the beginning" is the "Only Begotten" and that he is also called God, as also in the verses which immediately follow it explains that he is God, for it says, "The Only-Begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

This passage is very obscure, but at least it is clear that the reading favored by Valentinus was precisely that now found in Papyrus 75, the only begotten God. What could be more probable than Dean Burgon's suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten Son to the only begotten God? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos). According to the Traditional reading, the Word mentioned in John 1:14 is identified with the only begotten Son mentioned in John 1:18. Is it not likely that Valentinus, denying such identification, sought to reinforce his denial by the easy method of altering Son to God (a change of only one letter in Greek) and using this word God in an inferior sense to refer to the Word rather than the Son? This procedure would enable him to deny that in John 1:14 the Word is identified with the Son. He could argue that in both these verses the reference is to the Word and that therefore the Word and the Son are two distinct Beings.

Thus we see that it is unwise in present-day translators to base the texts of their modern versions on recent papyrus discoveries or on B and Aleph. For all these documents come from Egypt, and Egypt during the early Christian centuries was a land in which heresies were rampant. So much was this so that, as Bauer (1934) and van Unnik (1958) have pointed out, later Egyptian Christians seem to have been ashamed of the heretical past of their country and to have drawn a veil of silence across it. This seems to be why so little is known of the history of early Egyptian Christianity. In view, therefore, of the heretical character of the early Egyptian Church, it is not surprising that the papyri, B, Aleph, and other manuscripts which hail from Egypt are liberally sprinkled with heretical readings." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pgs 133-134

Dave
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew." Matthew 26:73-74
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Wow, ten replies to youself....in a row...... in your own thread. You need to get out more.
rolleye.gif
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Wow, ten replies to youself....in a row...... in your own thread. You need to get out more.
rolleye.gif

Spanning nearly four months, no less. You can't question his dedication, in any event.