Which Version? (6) - Sermon Index

SI Sponsors

Forever Written / Scripture Signs

TurboScribe - Transcribe your sermon with AI

Church Plant Media, Sermon Hosting and Website

Login

Main Menu

· Home
· About Us
· Audio Sermons
    by Speaker
    by Topic
    by Scripture
    by Podcast
· Text Sermons
    Christian Books
    Online Bibles
· Video Sermons
· Vintage Images
· Discussion Forum
· Contact Us
· Giving

Featured Sermon - The Path to Power and Usefulness by A.W. Tozer

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Which Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )

Poster

Thread

Re:

Quote:

I am still waiting for your examples.

Did you completely by-pass my extensive thread??

2005/2/1 11:43

Re:

Quote:

My very first Bible, a KJV, was bought at the front door from a JW.

Thats an interesting statement since the JW's Bible is NOT the KJV, but the New World (I believe it's called), and it is almost 100% based on the Wescott & Hort. That must have been a renegade JW.

As for the other cults... Seventh Day Adventist, Mormons, etc etc... they are not based on the KJV. They have their own Bibles exclusive to their cult, and definately are not based on TR translations.

Krispy

2005/2/1 11:46

Re:

Quote:

He has an NIV in his study and a Moffat!! Do you think he is in spiritual danger?

You're refering to Chuck Smith... and I dont believe he is in spiritual danger. BUT I do believe he is terribly inconsistant. He takes a strong stand for the KJV... yet lets the corrupted versions off light. I think that is confusion.

On a whole tho, I find Chuck Smith to be pretty solid.

Krispy

2005/2/1 11:49

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

Thats an interesting statement since the JW's Bible is NOT the KJV, but the New World (I believe it's called), and it is almost 100% based on the Wescott & Hort. That must have been a renegade JW.

Depends which century you're working in!

"The entire work was originally published in 6 volumes, from 1950 to 1960. While the first volumes contained marginal references and footnotes, the revised one-volume edition, published in 1961, contained neither. A second revision was released in 1970, and a third revision, with footnotes, was produced in 1971. It was again revised in 1984."
They have only used the New World Translation since the 1960s!!

_________________
Ron Bailey

2005/2/1 11:55

Profile

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

edited.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2005/2/1 11:58

Profile

Re:

Quote:

They have only used the New World Translation since the 1960s!!

I'm only 37... what do I know? I was born 1967. The JW's can easily be refuted with a KJV. If they started out using the KJV then it was quite a stretch for them to justify their doctrines w/ a KJV. Any time I have had discussions with JW's they refuse to acknowledge the KJV. Back in the day when I used the NIV I had problems countering them... I found out it's because of the underlying manuscript issue.

2005/2/1 12:00

Re:

Quote:

No, I read it but it didn't contain specific references.

You've got to be kidding me... Well, if you can read that and not see any references, then I am afraid your mind is made up and I'm wasting my time. I do appreciate the sword fight tho... keeps my debating techniques limber.

Krispy

2005/2/1 12:03

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

Did you completely by-pass my extensive thread??

I bought my KJV from them in 1953; I was 11.

_________________
Ron Bailey

2005/2/1 12:03

Profile

Re:

Quote:

I bought my KJV from them in 1953; I was 11.

My goodness, you're old! LOL ... ;-)

2005/2/1 12:05

philologos
Member

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

Re:

Quote:

You've got to be kidding me... Well, if you can read that and not see any references, then I am afraid your mind is made up and I'm wasting my time. I do appreciate the sword fight tho... keeps my debating techniques limber.

What I mean is that these quotations are not tied absolutely to Byzantine textform references. The early church fathers are known rather for their following of the Western textform as distinct from the Alexandrian. The best known representative of the Western textform is the Codex Beza which, according to my understanding has the whole of Mark 16. The Alexandrian textform represented by the Vatican and Sinai codices omits the verses. The Byzantine textform, of course, has them.

Irenaeus quotes are usually reckoned to be evidence of his access to the Western textform rather than the Byzantine.

There are some very informative pages on the wikipaedia. These are the views of different people and I would not affirm any of them, but for anyone who is struggling with the various terms some hyperlinking around these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_text-type

will give you a feel for the field.

Generally the Western textform is longer (expanded)than the Byzantine textform, while the Alexandrian is (reduced) shorter than the Byzantine.

sorry can't get the link to work, try googling on (wikipedia "western text-type")

_________________
Ron Bailey

2005/2/1 15:49

Profile