SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Easter or Passover?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 )
PosterThread









 Re:


Ccchhhrrriiisss, I have just proved to you, on this thread, that the King James Bible is different than all of the newer versions. What did I prove to you? That the King James presents God’s Word . The other versions, who rely on the minority text, as well as the work of the Gnostics, do not have the same Words. The reason is that the Gnostics cut and pasted God’s Word to conform to their own understanding of what God should have said.

In this thread, Scripture proves the King James to be the only version that supports Bible Doctrine. The other versions, cut and pasted by men, have used the word Passover instead of the [b]ONLY word it could be-EASTER[/b]. If these men, who cut and pasted the newer version that you rely on knew the scriptures, they would have known that it was an impossibility to arrest Peter during the Feast of Unleavened bread and release him at Passover. Passover precedes (comes before) the Feast of Unleavened Bread by one day. Passover is celebrated on the 14th of Abib, while the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th of Abib and continues for 7 days, through the 21st of Abib. Peter was not going to release from Prison until AFTER EASTER!

[b]Can you understand this, ccchhhrrriiisss? It was an imposibility to release Peter at the Passover, because he was arrested one day after the Feast of Passover and put into prison the next day, at the beginning of the Feast of Unleaved Bread.[/b]

Easter, the Pagan holiday of Ishtar, going all the way back in time to ancient Babylon is the correct rendering of the celebration that Herod would release Peter to the people. The Romans celebrated this holiday, as well as many of the Jews. In fact today, many Jews still celebrate this pagan Holiday in reverence to the fertility God Ishtar. I have proven this to you in my prior posts, on this thread.

The King James is the only Translation today for the Christian that stays true to God’s [b]Inspired Word, period.[/b]

Acts 12:4
[b]King James Version 4. And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.[/b]

New King James 4. So when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after[b]Passover.[/b]

American Standard: 4. And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the [b]Passover[/b] to bring him forth to the people.

Living Bible: 4. and imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of sixteen soldiers. Herod's intention was to deliver Peter to the Jews for execution after the[b] Passover.[/b]

Revised Standard 4. And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the[b] Passover[/b] to bring him out to the people

International English (NT) 4. Herod had Peter arrested and put in jail. He turned Peter over to a group of 16 soldiers to guard him. Herod wanted to wait until after the[b] Passover Festival[/b]. Then he planned to bring Peter before the people.

Literal Bible with Strongs [b] Passover (Feast)[/b]

New American Standard 4. When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the [b]Passover[/b] to bring him out before the people.

New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) 4. As it was during the days of Unleavened Bread that he had arrested him, he put him in prison, assigning four sections of four soldiers each to guard him, meaning to try him in public after the [b]Passover.[/b]

New American with Apocrypha 4. He had him taken into custody and put in prison under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. He intended to bring him before the people after [b]Passover.[/b]

New Revised Standard with Apocrypha 4. When he had seized him, he put him in prison and handed him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the [b]Passover.[/b]

Youngs Bible 4. whom also having seized, he did put in prison, having delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending after the[b] passover[/b] to bring him forth to the people.

Darbys Bible 4. whom having seized he put in prison, having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep, purposing after the [b]passover[/b] to bring him out to the people.

Weymnouths N.T. 4. He had him arrested and lodged in jail, handing him over to the care of sixteen soldiers; and intended after the [b]Passover[/b] to bring him out again to the people.

Websters Bible 4. And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after the [b]passover[/b] to bring him forth to the people.

New Living Translation 4. and imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod's intention was to bring Peter out for public trial after the [b]Passover.[/b]

International Standard 4. When he arrested him, he put him in prison and turned him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, planning to bring him out to the people after the [b]Passover[/b]


Williams NT 4. He had him seized and put into prison, and turned him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, planning after the [b]Passover[/b] to bring him out again to the people.

Montgomery NT 4. He had him arrested and thrown in prison, and put under guard of sixteen soldiers. He intended, after the [b]Passover,[/b] to bring him forth to the people.


[b][color=990000]In Conclusion:

Only the King James offers us the Inspired Word of God. The others fall short, over and over throughout the Scripture.

SCRIPTURE PRESERVTION- PROMISED TO US IN THE SCRIPTURES!

Scripture Preservation

Are the Scriptures just the "ideas" of God, or are they the very WORDS of God? You decide!

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

You shall not add or take away, says God!
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

God cares about every one of His words!
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."(Proverbs 30:5-6)

God's words will never pass away!
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Jesus Christ, Son of God)
(Mark 13:31)


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

This doesn't sound like God inspired only the "concepts" in Scripture. He clearly directed every word and will not tolerate man's meddling with it. He calls them "His Words."

If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "FORMAL EQUIVALENCE." All other Bibles were translated using "DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE," in which the TRANSLATOR IS FREE TO CHANGE WORDS AS LONG AS HE/SHE CONVEYS THE "IDEA."

Read the above Scriptures again. Which kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have?

Sincerely,

Walter[/color][/b]

Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Waltern...

I didn't say that these errors were confined to the KJV. In fact, I admitted that these errors are found in other versions too. The problem that these errors create is in your insistence that the KJV is "perfect" and "preserved" -- down to "the last dot and tittle." There are errors in it. Yet it is astounding that you create arguments to defend the errors!

DELETED


*EDIT*
Quote:
Now, with this understanding, we can see why they don’t match 100%. They are not authored by God, through the power of the Holy Ghost to satisfy an ACCOUNTANT. They are meant to present religious history, a prophetic and moral viewpoint (from a priestly and spiritual perspective), and to bring believers closer to Jesus Christ through the power of His Word and the Holy Spirit.

So you don't believe that the Book of Chronicles is inspired? Or is it Kings? Both? It seems like you are admitting that there are errors in one or the other. So correct me if I am wrong, but you are simply saying that one is inspired and the other is not?

 2008/11/22 12:31
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4501


 Re:

Hi waltern...

Quote:
Ccchhhrrriiisss, I have just proved to you, on this thread, that the King James Bible is different than all of the newer versions.

Actually, I already knew that the KJV is different than EVERY other translation (modern or otherwise). What you have demonstrated through this thread is that the errors found in the KJV are present in some other translations as well.
Quote:
What did I prove to you? That the King James presents God’s Word .


...and I never said that the KJV was anything less than a translation of God's Word. However, it seems like your argument is built upon a sandy foundation that claims that the KJV is the ONLY acceptable, perfect and preserved version of God's Word. For instance...
Quote:
In this thread, Scripture proves the King James to be the only version that supports Bible Doctrine.

Do you see what you are doing here? You are trying to argue that the KJV is the only version of the Bible that is correct. I fear that you don't realize what you are doing.

You once asked me where I performed my research. I have gone over this in the past with you, but I still provided examples of how and why I came to the conclusions that I have arrived at. But what about you? Where did YOU get your beliefs? Upon what evidence, through research, did you come to such a conclusion about the KJV being "perfect and preserved" to the "last dot and tittle?" I know that you had to do research (given your choice to "cut and paste" words from other KJV-only sources). But I take it that you didn't just research KJV-only books, right? You had to have tested everything by researching the claims in those books in order to prove the truth, right? Where did you do YOUR research? I know you must have prayed (like I did). But upon what evidence, other than a few KJV-only books, have you based your arguments?

Where did you get this notion about Easter? Are you a text scholar or an expert in the field of Jewish anthropology (especially in regard to your claims about Easter)? Where did you get your information about the word/passage of Acts 12:4 and the notion that this word should be "Easter" instead of "Passover" (which is the word choice for nearly every other version -- including those taken from the same sources and those that predate the KJV).

Your argument about "Easter" is something entirely extra-Biblical. You seem to argue that the translators must have used their own intellect to reason that the word should be Easter. Upon what evidence are you basing this? Do you have proof that this was their rationale? Do you have proof that their rationale was anything except a typo?

You haven't proven anything...except that the premise for YOUR argument is based upon a notion that the KJV cannot have a single misplaced letter or error -- and that all other versions are unacceptable. You also seem to get upset when anyone applies the same sort of scrutiny toward the KJV that you use to question or belittle others versions. In fact, your argument seems to already be predetermined, thus negating the need for a discussion. There can be no errors in the KJV, because you believe it is perfect. Any apparent error must have an explanation (other than the idea that it is an obvious error). Thus, your defense utilizes "circular reasoning" in that "[i]the KJV is perfect and cannot have mistakes[/i]" -or- "[i]there can be no mistakes because the KJV is perfect[/i]."
Quote:
Only the King James offers us the Inspired Word of God. The others fall short, over and over throughout the Scripture.


Brother, the translators of the KJV disagreed with your argument. They didn't suppose to have created a flawless, perfect version. They simply wanted a faithful, modernized version of the Scriptures in the "vulgar" (common) tongue that could be easily understood. We don't have many of their notes in which they considered other possible word choice for some passages (including their rationale behind the use of the word "Passover" in Acts 12:4). But no worry -- they HAD to have created a PERFECT version! According to what seems to be the rationale behind KJV-only advocates -- we don't have to think about the validity of their different sources, their doctrinal opinions and lifestyles, or their finished product -- because it is PERFECT! Yet, it seems, that KJV-only advocates can apply that sort of scrutiny to any other version.

Brother, I don't know that anything (including evidence) could ever move you from your stance regarding the infallibility of the KJV. Yet you continue to post, create threads and malign all other versions in your attempt to get out what you assume to be "truth."

Believe it or not, there are many of us who were not prejudiced one way or the other when we began our research about this matter. We honestly and openly looked into this matter with great diligence -- considering truth over presumption. In the end, I couldn't find a reason to dismiss certain academic versions (like the NIV) any more than I could dismiss certain academic translations like the KJV. Thus, I primarily read the KJV (due to the immense amount of sources available in English) but also the NASB, NIV and a couple other versions that I deem to be academically sound.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2008/11/22 13:23Profile









 Re: Character of Reformation believers



[b]CHARACTER?


What was the character like of those Protestant Christians of the reformation, in the early days, before error came into God’s Word? Men from 1703 to 1899 and beyond. Were they proud & boastful, lovers of themselves, high minded, full of their own flesh, impossible to teach? Or were they truly men of God, following the commands of Jesus Christ. Were they humble, meek, lowly, self effacing, daily crucifying their own flesh on the cross of Christ within their hearts in order for Christ to be able do HIS work in and through them?

Let us all look at each one of these men, and compare ourselves to them. One thing that each of these men had in common was the King James Bible, the very Spirit breathed and preserved Word of God.[/b]

Pastor Charles Chiniquy
1809-1899
“Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Fifty.Years.Church.Rome.html

Two Excerpts from “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome”
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Two.Excerpts.html


John Wesley
(1703-1791)

A Plain Account of Christian Perfection
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html


The Use of Money
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/The.Use.of.Money.html


J. Hudson Taylor
(1832-1905)
Founder of China Inland Mission

A Letter from Dr. Hudson Taylor
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Letter.from.Hudson.Taylor.html

Timely Supplies
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Taylor.Timely.Supplies.html

Meditations on Cross Bearing
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Meditations/On.Cross.Bearing.html

Meditations on the Great Father
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Meditations/The.Great.Father.html

Union and Communion
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Union.and.Communion.html

Meditations on the First Psalm
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Meditations/The.First.Psalm.html

Meditations on the History of Job
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Meditations/The.History.of.Job.html
A New Years Address
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/New.Years.Address.html

Meditations on the Book of Ruth
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Meditations/The.Book.of.Ruth.html

Comments on the Song of Solomon
Judith Bront
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/Comments.Song.of.Solomon.html

From the book:
[b]"The Song of Solomon" has been one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible. However, this has not always been the case. In the days of the Reformation, and in times when persecution of Jesus Christ's Church was the greatest, His Bride tenaciously clung to the love song He had given her. It was one of the most memorized books of the Bible. But with the passing of time, to our great shame, we have forgotten the meaning of this most precious book.

For, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." ~ 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 ~

In the short eight chapters of "The Song of Solomon", we find the close and intimate communion of the Royal Bridegroom, King Solomon, and his bride. The example of their complete unity and oneness of love is the same experience we should have with our Royal Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. It is my fervent desire that we now remember the love promise that Jesus has bestowed on us, and cling to Him as the Church did so long ago.[/b]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

George Mueller
(1805-1898)
A Sample of his Book: Answers on Prayer
[url=http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/George.Mueller.of.Bristol/George.Mueller.of.Bristol.html]Answers to Prayer[/url]

A book on George Mueller by A.T. Pierson
[url=http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/George.Mueller.of.Bristol/George.Mueller.of.Bristol.html]George Mueller[/url]

Andrew Murray
1828-1917
The writings of Andrew Murray
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Andrew.Murray.html

Charles G. Finney
1792-1875

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Charles.G.Finney.html

[b][color=990000]
Walter continues:

Finney made this statement from his pulpit in the early 1800’s. Do we hear this being Preached and Taught in our Churches today?

"Prophets, Christ, and his apostles,
have left on the pages of inspiration
no dubious testimony against
every form of sin.

THE SPIRIT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE
BREATHES FROM EVERY PAGE
BLASTING and ANNIHILATION
UPON EVERY UNHOLY ABOMINATION,

while it smiles upon everything
of good report
that PROMISES BLESSING TO MAN
and GLORY TO GOD."

--------------------
In this day of declension, at the end of the age, have you heard anyone say and believe these words, that God's Word is Spirit Breathed and has the power to destroy and anniliate every unholy abomination?

No, what we hear is the hiss of Satan, who spoke to eve in the Garden, questioning God's authority, God's goodness, and God's power, that hisses to us: "There are errors in every Bible version, all of them. There is no difference, whether I have a King James Bible or any other Bible translation in my hands, even a Catholic Bible, an NIV Bible---there is no difference", they tell us. "We just have to pick and choose what we like from this one, and then what we like from that one," they tell us. "God has not preserved His Word, we only have bits and pieces of His Word, that ANYONE that understands Greek and a little bit of Hebrew can cut and paste together into a better version", they tell us.

Brother and sister in Christ, DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIE. GOD has PROMISED us, IN HIS VERY WORD, that HE WILL PRESERVE HIS WORD FOREVER.


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

You shall not add or take away, says God.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

God CARES about EVERY ONE one of HIS WORDS.
(Proverbs 30:5-6)
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

God's WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY.
(Mark 13:31)
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God)

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

GOD DID NOT PROMISE US ONLY THE INSPIRED "CONCEPTS" IN SCRIPTURE FOREVER. GOD PROMISED US HIS VERY WORD WOULD BE PRESEVED FOREVER. HE CLEARLY DIRECTED EVERY WORD AND WILL NOT TOLERATE MAN'S MEDDLING WITH IT. HE CALLS THEM "HIS WORDS".

If your Bible is a King James Bible, it preserves God's words because it was translated using "formal equivalence." All other Bibles were translated using "dynamic equivalence," in which the translator is free to change words as long as he conveys the "idea."

Read the above Scriptures again. Compare your walk with Jesus Christ with those of the Protestant Reformation, that all relied on the King James Bible. Which kind of Bible do you think God wants you to have?

Leave the "unclean thing", run from it, RUN, RUN!


Sincerely,

Walter[/color][/b]

 2008/11/23 10:36
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Waltern,

Please use the "URL" button to present links. Copying and pasting [i]long[/i] URL's make the page wide, out of proportion.

It is very simple to use. Rather than embedding the copied link directly into the reply, click on "URL". A box opens up. Paste the link into it. Click OK. Another box opens whereby you can give it a title. Click OK. The link is now complete.

Yes, it does place it at the bottom of your reply, simply cut and paste accordingly into your reply as needed.



To the matter at hand ...

It's old, worn out, beaten to death and being that there is nothing of consideration, no challenge to your permanently set, obstinate conclusions, and they are obstinate, your character disavows your convictions. There is no room for consideration, no 'you might have a point there' to any of your rhetoric in all the long discourses you have presented here time and again ... So much so that even this will slide right on by ...

You have an agenda, [i]not[/i] matter for discussion. You continually overlook the obvious, barking at those who generally agree with the superiority or veracity of that version in question. Even this latest entry of yours is ridiculous by the obviousness that those names mentioned, these great stalwarts of the faith ...

What version would you think they might be using? "The Message"? It's practically absurd when that is what was then available.

You have notion in your head that is [i]fixed[/i] that somewhere, mid-stream in the course of all human civilization the KJV came breathed into existence as the final, authoritative, "breathed" and [i]only[/i] communication from God to man. The argument itself is defaulted by everything that came before it, namely the Holy writ ... "preserved" in the 'originals', in that language that they were written in, at the [i]time[/i] they written in. Translations and all that we fallen men have ever done is to get as close as possible by [i]translation[/i] because that is all that we can do being that the world is full of variant languages is so blatantly obvious that it somehow escapes the nefarious idea that [i]only[/i], [u]this[/u] version [b]is[/b] the be all end all of all argument.

Your accusations of others for their use of cut and paste is ludicrous when you have posted reams of material in like fashion.

In the past you have abused the privileges, abused the fonts by over exaggeration in size and scheme and color and continue to abuse the intentions of this forum, bringing contention, fostering it, manufacturing it. All things that you choose to overlook. We have locked your posts time and again and yet you would turn around and defy the generosity given by turning out yet one more in an attempt to justify your poor conduct.

And that is what is quite incredible. For what the scriptures [i]teach[/i] - of the heart, of our sin, of the remedy of all the things that truly matter, it has not yet gotten down into the fabric of being. Strange thing that a so called poorer, weaker version still has the desired effect on the many than it does those who are so adamant in this delusion of 'onliness' that is espoused.

Here is your opportunity to reconsider your character against the long-suffering of the many here. Have we not been more than patient? Will you not at the very least take a step back and think about it, how it might all sound to your hearers, how the stirring up and agitation of those around you is not edification but spreading of unnecessary division, strife and ill-will? All over something [i]already[/i] largely agreed upon even if for very different reasons, that this is the preferred version ...

There is nothing left to appeal to Waltern and you are forcing us to make a decision, only you yourself can alter it.

Think about it long and hard before you reply.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/11/23 12:17Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4501


 Re:

Waltern...

I am not talking about scrutinizing the "character" of the men that you listed (who had NOTHING to do with the translation efforts for the KJV). I am talking about the character and doctrinal views of the men who actually translated the KJV. You feel safe and secure to scrutinize those translators of versions like the NIV...but hesitate to allow the same sort of scrutiny to the KJV. You would think that they were "inspired" in their translation efforts -- yet they held to some questionable doctrinal views. I am not saying that I would want to scrutinize these men, but I find it interesting that you reject the same sort of scrutiny that you freely give. If we applied the same sort of scrutiny that you give to versions like the NIV, we could arrive to the same conclusion about the KJV.

As for the discussion at hand: I completely reject the notion that the KJV is perfect and preserved down to "the last dot and tittle." It contains quite a few apparent errors, was translated by men who held to the Roman "high church" doctrinal traditions, and the translators themselves admitted that it was not perfect.

It is odd that your opinion differs with the opinions of those who actually translated the KJV!


_________________
Christopher

 2008/11/23 13:46Profile









 Re: Which Version



Dear Moderator:

What you have posted is being taught as curriculum in most Bible Colleges today. However, just because something is taught in Bible College does not guarantee it’s veracity.

I have posted the difference between the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, as found in the King James Bible with all of the newer versions. No matter which new version I use (the NASB, the NIV, the New King James Bible, etc. etc.) it differs from the ‘Textus Receptus” as found in the King James Bible.

In 1881 Westcott & Hort published their “Revised” New Testament. One year later, in 1882 Dean John Burgon published a book, totally refuting ALL OF THEIR WORK. His book is entitled [b]“The Revision Revised- A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory”[/b] and is 549 pages that not only refutes the “New Greek Text” of Westcott and Hort, but also refutes their “New English Version” as well as totally refuting their (Westcott & Hort’s) “New Textural Theory”.

It was originally published in 1882 and had it’s second printing on September 1, 2000 and can be ordered from: Dean Burgeon Society Press; Box 354; Collingswood, New Jersey 08108: ISBN 1-888328-01-0;
[url=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/]The Dean Burgon Society[/url]


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b]There are three texts that are in agreement: 1) The Textus Receptus; 2) The Byzantine Text; 3) Antiochan Text.

There is one group that is not in agreement with the texts above- The Alexandrian Text. In fact, the Alexandrian text is not even in agreement with itself![/b]

All of the newer Bible versions rely on the Alexandrian Text, where the discrepancies can all be found (that I, as well as others have previously posted).

Textual History of the Bible

[url=http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a]The Textual History of the Bible[/url]

Many Christians are completely unaware that modern Bible versions differ from the King James Bible in a way they never expected … they are not translated from the same Bible text!

The "Received Text"

Down through history, long before the advent of the printing press, men made copies of the Scriptures by hand. However, they did not all do so with the same attitude toward the Scriptures. Many made their copies with a sense of spiritual awe, not daring to change a word, because it was the Word of God. Archaeologists have found thousands of these copies from all over the ancient world, and been amazed at how they agree! Truly God did preserve His Word in His church. The text they give us is often called by one of the following names:

[b]Textus Receptus (Latin for "Received Text")
Byzantine Text - because of the part of the world in which we find it.
Antiochan Text - the church at Antioch used it[/b]

The "Alexandrian Text"

[b]However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like. The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.

Choosing which text to use[/b]
[b][color=CC0000]All of our existing copies come from one of the two textual streams described above. We call them "streams" because they are made of copies made from copies. By comparing them and noting their differences, it is easy to determine from which stream each copy came.


Honest scholars understood that if God really kept His promise to preserve His Word, then we would expect to find copies all over the church at large that agree. Sure enough, they found that 95% of all existing copies agreed, coming from the Antiochan (or Byzantine) text, so it was clear that the Received Text, based upon these agreeing copies all over the ancient church, was the correct one. This is the text used by Luther, Tyndale, Calvin, Matthews, Coverdale. When King James commissioned his famous English Bible translation, the scholars naturally used this Received Text. [/color][/b]

[b]Not everyone believed God kept His promise:[/b]


In the mid nineteenth century, two scholars came along who helped to change everything. Their names were Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brook Foss Westcott. From their personal correspondence, it is clear that Hort and Westcott did not hold a faith comparable to that held by millions of evangelical Christians today.

[b]Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., writes:
"It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.

Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "

Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."

Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution. [/b]

[b][color=000000]It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria." From "The Answer Book" by Samuel Gipp [/color][/b]

[b]
Gaining positions on the committee to "revise" the King James Bible, Hort and Westcott persuaded the committee to abandon the Received Text which had been preserved by the ancient church. Instead, the committee was convinced to use the Alexandrian text, provided by the Roman Catholic Church who had preserved it. They accepted the notion that God had not preserved His Word in the ancient Church, but had instead entrusted it to the hand of the Roman Catholic Church, the organization which had hunted and slaughtered Christians who dared possess their own copy of God's Word!

Is this any way to translate a Bible?

Having sold the Alexandrian text to the revision committee, Hort and Westcott became the "gurus of Bible texts". The translators often faced an impossible problem. Having abandoned the broad evidence of history, throwing out 95% of the available copies, they had to decide exactly what each verse should say based upon only 5% of the available evidence. And there was the problem. These few texts could not even agree with each other! How do you decide which is correct?

Enter Hort and Westcott. They decided what the text should say, and the committee dutifully translated it. So instead of the authority of the Bible text coming from the broad evidence of history, it was coming from the intellect of two respected scholars. God doesn't do things that way. A study of the lives and theology of these two men helps explain why their biblical text began to have holes in it … verses were missing![/b]

It's a simple choice:

[b]All modern Bible versions are based upon the work of Hort and Westcott, using the corrupt Alexandrian text. The King James Bible is based upon the Received Text. If you believe that God allowed his Word to be hidden from the church for centuries, only to be revealed much later by the Roman Catholic Church, you will want a modern Bible based upon the Alexandrian text.

If you believe that God preserved His Word in His church, throughout the centuries, you will want a King James Bible, based upon the historical Received Text.

The choice is yours.[/b]

Back to Bible versions information page
©1984-2008 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission, as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
QUESTION: Who was Dean Burgon?
ANSWER: He was an outstanding 19th century Bible scholar.
EXPLANATION:[b] John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a man of tremendous intellect and ranks among men such a Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626) and Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930) in scholarship. He became the Dean of Chichester and has since been known as "Dean" Burgon. Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory. He would leave no stone unturned in his quest for truth and no blow undelivered in his defense of it.

His serious scholarship, quick wit and acid tongue drove Westcott and Hort and all other Alexandrian scholars from the field of battle. His arguments against the Alexandrian text and in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark and other questioned portions have proven to be as unanswerable by modem scholarship as they were to his contemporaries. [/b]


Sincerely,

Walter


Quote:

crsschk wrote:
Waltern,

Please use the "URL" button to present links. Copying and pasting [i]long[/i] URL's make the page wide, out of proportion.

It is very simple to use. Rather than embedding the copied link directly into the reply, click on "URL". A box opens up. Paste the link into it. Click OK. Another box opens whereby you can give it a title. Click OK. The link is now complete.

Yes, it does place it at the bottom of your reply, simply cut and paste accordingly into your reply as needed.



To the matter at hand ...

It's old, worn out, beaten to death and being that there is nothing of consideration, no challenge to your permanently set, obstinate conclusions, and they are obstinate, your character disavows your convictions. There is no room for consideration, no 'you might have a point there' to any of your rhetoric in all the long discourses you have presented here time and again ... So much so that even this will slide right on by ...

You have an agenda, [i]not[/i] matter for discussion. You continually overlook the obvious, barking at those who generally agree with the superiority or veracity of that version in question. Even this latest entry of yours is ridiculous by the obviousness that those names mentioned, these great stalwarts of the faith ...

What version would you think they might be using? "The Message"? It's practically absurd when that is what was then available.

You have notion in your head that is [i]fixed[/i] that somewhere, mid-stream in the course of all human civilization the KJV came breathed into existence as the final, authoritative, "breathed" and [i]only[/i] communication from God to man. The argument itself is defaulted by everything that came before it, namely the Holy writ ... "preserved" in the 'originals', in that language that they were written in, at the [i]time[/i] they written in. Translations and all that we fallen men have ever done is to get as close as possible by [i]translation[/i] because that is all that we can do being that the world is full of variant languages is so blatantly obvious that it somehow escapes the nefarious idea that [i]only[/i], [u]this[/u] version [b]is[/b] the be all end all of all argument.

Your accusations of others for their use of cut and paste is ludicrous when you have posted reams of material in like fashion.

In the past you have abused the privileges, abused the fonts by over exaggeration in size and scheme and color and continue to abuse the intentions of this forum, bringing contention, fostering it, manufacturing it. All things that you choose to overlook. We have locked your posts time and again and yet you would turn around and defy the generosity given by turning out yet one more in an attempt to justify your poor conduct.

And that is what is quite incredible. For what the scriptures [i]teach[/i] - of the heart, of our sin, of the remedy of all the things that truly matter, it has not yet gotten down into the fabric of being. Strange thing that a so called poorer, weaker version still has the desired effect on the many than it does those who are so adamant in this delusion of 'onliness' that is espoused.

Here is your opportunity to reconsider your character against the long-suffering of the many here. Have we not been more than patient? Will you not at the very least take a step back and think about it, how it might all sound to your hearers, how the stirring up and agitation of those around you is not edification but spreading of unnecessary division, strife and ill-will? All over something [i]already[/i] largely agreed upon even if for very different reasons, that this is the preferred version ...

There is nothing left to appeal to Waltern and you are forcing us to make a decision, only you yourself can alter it.

Think about it long and hard before you reply.


 2008/12/8 20:24
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4501


 Re:

Hi Brother Waltern...

Just a thought, but the first paragraph of your last post could be rewritten to reflect a different opinion.

Quote:
"Dear Walter:

What you have posted is being taught as curriculum in most [i]KJV-only[/i] websites and organizations today. However, just because something is taught in [i]KJV-only[/i] websites does not guarantee it’s veracity."


_________________
Christopher

 2008/12/8 20:48Profile









 Re: Revision Revised



I have found the actual book, written and published in 1882 by Dean John Burgon. It can be found and read online:
[url=http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=1&id=nXkw1TAatV8C&dq=Revision+revised&jtp=1#PPR3,M1]The REVISION REVISED, by Dean John Burgon[/url]


It was originally published in 1882 and had it’s second printing on September 1, 2000 and can be ordered from: Dean Burgeon Society Press; Box 354; Collingswood, New Jersey 08108: ISBN 1-888328-01-0; If you want the actual book in your library it can be ordered from:
[url=http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_dbs_press.htm#The%20Revision]WEB LINK TO ORDER THE BOOK- THE " REVISION REVISED"[/url]

[b]Another book of tremendous value, to understand the corruption of God's preserved Word, that occurred by the Revision Committee and their Revision of the New Testament by Westcott & Hort is:
"The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels"[/b]
[url=http://www.archive.org/stream/causesofcorrupti00burgiala]The Causes of Corruption On-Line-Book[/url]
In this book Dean Burgon gives detailed illustrations of five accidental causes and ten intentional causes of the corruption of the original traditional text. The book is replete with condemnation of the B & Aleph, Vatican & Sinai , and The Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek Text.


More background information on Dean John Burgon from Wikipedia:

John William Burgon[1] (August 21, 1813 - August 4, 1888), English Anglican divine who become the Dean of Chichester Cathedral in 1876. He is remembered for his passionate defense of the historicity and Mosaic authorship of Genesis and of Biblical inerrancy in general. Burgon is also the only person to have an academic hood shape named after him.

Burgon was born at Smyrna, the son of a Turkey merchant who was a skilled numismatist and afterwards became an assistant in the antiquities department of the British Museum. His mother was Greek.

After a few years of business life, Burgon went to Worcester College, Oxford, in 1841, and took his degree in 1845. The same year he took the Newdigate Prize for his sonnet Petra, referring to Petra, the inaccessible city in the present Jordan, which he had heard described but had never seen:

"It seems no work of Man's creative hand,
by labor wrought as wavering fancy planned;
But from the rock as if by magic grown,
eternal, silent, beautiful, alone!
Not virgin-white like that old Doric shrine,
where erst Athena held her rites divine;
Not saintly-grey, like many a minster fane,
that crowns the hill and consecrates the plain;
But rose-red as if the blush of dawn,
that first beheld them were not yet withdrawn;
The hues of youth upon a brow of woe,
which Man deemed old two thousand years ago,
match me such marvel save in Eastern clime,
a rose-red city half as old as time.
The poem is now chiefly remembered for the famous final line."

(A textual puzzle: Burgon published "Petra, a Poem" in 1885. That book-length poem is a minor epic of 371 lines. It exhibits some variations from the version shown here: "consecrates" becomes "sanctifies"; "deemed" becomes "call'd"; "But rose-red as if the blush of dawn" becomes "But rosy-red,--as if the blush of dawn," and so on. Though "Petra" is usually referred to as a "sonnet," the couplet rhyme-scheme would make it unusual among mid-nineteenth-century sonnets. It is not clear whether the 1845 prize poem was 14 lines that Burgon later greatly expanded, or the lines usually quoted are an excerpt from a much longer original.)

Burgon was elected to an Oriel fellowship in 1846. He was much influenced by his brother-in-law, the scholar and theologian Henry John Rose (1800-1873), a conservative Anglican churchman with whom he used to spend his long vacations. Burgon made Oxford his headquarters, while holding a living at some distance.[b] In 1863 he was made vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, having attracted attention by his vehement sermons against Essays and Reviews, a series of messages on biblical inspiration in which he defended against the findings of textual criticism and higher criticism the historicity and Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and Biblical inerrancy in general:[/b][b][color=990000] "Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you."[/color][/b]

[b]In 1867 he was appointed Gresham Professor of Divinity. In 1871 he published a defence of the genuineness of the twelve last verses of the Gospel of Mark. He then began an attack on the proposal for a new lectionary for the Church of England, based largely upon his objections to the principles for determining the authority of manuscript readings in the Greek New Testament adopted by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, which he assailed in a memorable article in the Quarterly Review for 1881.

His biographical essays on Henry Longueville Mansel and others were also collected, and published under the title of Twelve Good Men (1888). Protests against the inclusion of Dr Vance Smith among the revisers, against the nomination of Dean Stanley to be select preacher in the University of Oxford, and against the address in favour of toleration in the matter of ritual, followed in succession. In 1876 Burgon was made the Dean of Chichester.

[2]His life was written by Edward Meyrick Goulburn (1892).

Passionate in his convictions, Burgon nevertheless possessed a warm and kindly heart. He may be described as a high churchman of the type prevalent before the rise of the Tractarian school. His extensive collection of transcripts from the Greek Fathers, illustrating the text of the New Testament, was bequeathed to the British Museum. He is also the only person to have an academic hood named after him, and in honour of this The Burgon Society is named after him.

Burgon in modern times

Today, the name of Burgon is known almost exclusively in connection with the Dean Burgon Society.[3] and the King-James-Only Movement. This latter identifies itself with Burgon, perhaps to distance itself from allegations that the King James Only movement had its origins in the writings of Seventh-day Adventist author Benjamin G. Wilkinson.[citation needed] However, while Burgon was outspoken about the Revised Version, and maintained the position that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, his positions were not exactly the same as today's King James Only movement.

Another society which takes on the Burgon name is the Burgon Society which was founded to promote the use and study of academical dress, named so because Burgon is the only person to have a hood shape named after him.

Publications
Apart from the sonnet Petra, Burgon's most notable work for which he is remembered today is The Revision Revised which was a critique of the then-new Revised Version of the Bible (1881),
[4] The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,
[5] The Traditional Text, and Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.

[6]Notes and references

1.the "g" in Burgon is now generally pronounced like the "g" in "Burgundy", not like the "g" in "burgeoning"

2.this is an ecclesiastical position, not an academic title. Burgon is widely known today by his ecclesiastical title, "Dean Burgon", which is mistakenly often either taken to be his name, or (equally mistakenly) to indicate an academic deanship

3.not the same as The Burgon Society previously mentioned

4.Google Books: Revision Revised

5.Google Books: The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

6.Google Books: The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Sources

• This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
External links

• "What did John William Burgon really believe about the Textus Receptus and the King James Version?" Researcher Doug Kutilek reconstructs Burgon's original views.

• The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels at CCEL. [/b]


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Burgon]Wikipedia Link to John William Burgon[/url]

Sincerely,

Walter :-)

 2008/12/10 23:38









 Re:

Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Brother Waltern...

Just a thought, but the first paragraph of your last post could be rewritten to reflect a different opinion.
Quote:
"Dear Walter:

What you have posted is being taught as curriculum in most [i]KJV-only[/i] websites and organizations today. However, just because something is taught in [i]KJV-only[/i] websites does not guarantee it’s veracity."



My response to Ccchhhrrriiisss:

What is important is Truth. What is the truth of the matter?. It is your position, based upon your volumnous posts that there is no difference between two separate Biblical texts, from two separte sources. You truly believe that they are of equal value, that they are both God's unchanging Word and we can pick and choose which one of the two to preach a sermon from or which one to study from for teaching and edification and internalization of God's Eternal Word.

However, the truth of the matter is that we have to make a choice. We only have two “Streams" of Bible Text that are available to mankind, that have been passed down to us through history-one from the Believing Church, and one from Scholars in Alexandria, Egypt.

Textural History of the Bible

[url=http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a]Textural History of the Bible[/url]

1) The First "Stream" of Text is The Received Text that has been copied and re-copied by “believers” in the early Church, by men who knew the Words they were copying were the very Words of God. Just like the Jewish Scribes, they did not want to miss one jot or one tittle, and copied the text word for word. This “stream” of Bible text is in agreement with itself- The Byzantine Text, The Antiocham Text, and the Textus Receptus. Archeologists have found thousands of these copies from all over the ancient world, and have been amazed at how they agree (by 95%) These streams are the Textus Receptus [Latin for "Received Text"], the Byzantine Text - because of the part of the world in which we find it and the Antiochan Text - the church at Antioch used it.)


2) The Second Stream of Text is the Alexandrian Text, that was provided to us by a group of “scholars” who did not have the same reverence for God’s Word. Instead of copying word for word, they thought they could do better, and made corrections that they thought better presented what the scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like. The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.

Today, in 2008 we only have two Bibles to choose from. If we choose the King James, we have the Received Text in our hands. However, if we choose the NIV, NASB, American Standard, New King James, Living Bible, Douay-Rheims, The Jerusalem Bible, etc. etc. etc. we have the Alexandrian Text in our hands. It was the Alexandrian Text that was first used to create the Catholic Bible, and is the version full of error.

In the end, we have a choice to make when we decide which Bible to use. If we want the Bible passed down to us from the believing Church, with the very preserved Words of God, then we must choose the Received Text. However, if we are drawn to the Alexandrian Text, then we must also discount God’s PROMISE in His Word, that He would PRESERVE His Word, and must look to fallen man and believe in Textural Criticism and Higher Criticism and man’s ability to interpret what God really meant to say. We would then choose any of the following newer version Bibles:
NIV, NASB, American Standard, New King James, Living Bible, Douay-Rheims, The Jerusalem Bible, etc. etc. etc.

Again, the choice is ours to make. But, lets be honest with ourselves and others about what we are doing.

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/12/12 22:25
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Quote:
It is your position, based upon your volumnous posts ...



Beyond ironic ...

Locked.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/12/12 23:01Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy