SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re: crsschk

Quote:
Check me out. I am a born again, Bible believing Christian who loves Jesus with all of my heart.



Tried to do that yesterday but the profile was all blanks. Not as much as a first name. I took it for granted that your legal name was NOT actually Received Text. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.


Quote:
If this is not how you want to operate, I suggest nixing the term "forum" and go with "club" or something exclusive like that. If I thought this was a good ol' boys club, I wouldn't have bothered. But a forum? Cool. Let's talk.



No, this is not a "good ole' boys" club and nor is it a discussion board dedicated to debating "KJV only". We surely have discussed the topic at length and have had the priveledge of having Ron Bailey guiding us through the subject as he is very versed on the topic. Many here have a basic understanding of the issues, but His understanding extends well beyond reading any one book on the subject or any one position. If you will look through the thread he suggests you will find he has actually viewed in person certain of the old manuscripts that pertain to this whole debate.

Personally I am KJV also, but as Ron mentioned in one of his first responses to your postings, your posture in this is not helpful to the cause. Moreover, the name of the book in question is a major turn off.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/4/25 8:19Profile
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: crsschk

At the risk of falling further on my face...

Brother, here is the rub.

We have no idea of who you are.
Perhaps a little about yourself [i]before[/i] jumping into an area that tends towards such controversy.

Yes, maybe a bit gun shy around here, but recent event's (over the preceding months) have seen this once not so hostile forum being manipulated and capitulated into all kinds of grievous area's.
It has been of such a great matter that many good people have just left over it.

Being that you came suddenly out of nowhere and began with primarily two area's, the issues with the Catholic Church and now this coupled with your choice of member name... What might you suspect the members of this site to get a picture of?

Quote:
I am getting things like, "We have already discussed this." Who is we???


Precisely! Who is 'we' and who is 'you'! :-)

Misunderstandings abound so do forgive us for where we have missed your intent, but at the same time can not the thoughts brought up by us 'we' people be taken into consideration here?

As was alluded to there is an awful lot of prior discussion here on any number of topics, have you read any of them? Including this issue here?

Again, the [i]perception[/i] is one of an agenda and that may be of our own misunderstanding, but it is not without some truth to it. There is an awful lot of this kind of thing going on, where someone's opinion is pushed to the point of being exalted above and without consideration for everyone else around here. In other words it is basically ignored.

It also is a jump to assume that being guarded is equal to an idea of being a 'click' or a 'good ol boy's club'. How can one make that assumption in such a short time span? This is what we are driving at, get a feel for the place, that's all. Have you listened to any of the messages?
Tell us a little about yourself... really, we are not that hostile, just a little paranoid maybe :-?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/4/25 9:08Profile









 Re:

Hello, I am a new poster here. I have read "Which Version Is The Bible" by Jones, as well as "Ripped from the Bible" and found both books fascinating. It might be a good idea to at least read "Which Version" before jumping to conclusions about it. It is fully documented and provides hard evidence for the reasons behind the apostacy taking place inside the Christian Body today. Look at the debacle taking place in the Episcopal Church and others and we have to look no farther. Up until the 1880's the Christian knew he had the very word of God in his hands when he picked up the Bible. After the "textural Critics" Westcott & Hort- who did not even believe in the Divinity of Christ- got through with their mission of eliminating the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and replacing it with the corrupt Alexandrian text (relied upon by the Catholic Bible). They released their "Newer Verfsion" on an unsuspecting public. Their initial charge was to update the language. What they ended up doing is gutting the text itself that was relied upon by the early Church all the way to the time that Erasmus did his translation. He (Erasmus) had all of the versions to choose from- the "Received Text" (Textus Receptus) as well as the Alexandrian Text (Vaticanius B & Sinaitius Aleph) [that had been translated into Latin & used by the Catholics as their own Bible.

Its a deep study, but if you give it a little thought, it is no wonder that the Catholics have so much trouble with Doctrine. Their Text is the same one that the NIV relies on- the corrupt Alexandrian (Egyptian) text.

Jones book "Ripped from the Bible" gives a side by side comparison between the Textus Receptus & the Alexandrian and documents what is missing in the all of the "Newer Versions". It is a much faster read than "Which Version" and is a good way to start the study--

God Bless,

Stever

 2005/5/25 4:32
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
After the "textural Critics" Westcott & Hort- who did not even believe in the Divinity of Christ-


Please give documentary evidence for this statement. How much Westcott have you read?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/5/25 5:16Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Its a deep study, but if you give it a little thought, it is no wonder that the Catholics have so much trouble with Doctrine. Their Text is the same one that the NIV relies on- the corrupt Alexandrian (Egyptian) text.



The Catholics got into so much trouble because they allowed the Pagan Greek culture to assimilate into Christian practice. they had done it no matter what text they used. Certainly we cannot fault their manuscripts for their corruption.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/5/25 11:13Profile









 Re:

The Book documents everything and I take it you haven't had the time to read it. Just some of the references to Westcott & Hort consist of:

Herman C. Hoskier, The John Rylands Bullentin, 19-1922/23, p. 118. Hoskier stood with Burgon & Scrivener against the Revised text. He produced the two famous comprehensive works Codex B and its Allies and Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.
Jack A. Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #1617, 1988), p. 26.
Westcott, B. F. and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, (NY: Harper and Bros., 1882), p. 107.
Ibid., p. 2.
Kurt Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research" the Bible in Modern Scholarship,n.P. Hyatt ed., (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 337.

Further documentation:

Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (London: Macmillian, 1903) Vol. I, p. 81. The Pieta was a life sized statue of Mary holding Jesus' dead body. For a detailed documentation of all the following regarding W-H's beliefs see: George H. Coy, The Inside Story of the Anglo-American Revised New Testament (Dallas, OR: Itemizer- Observer, 1973), pp. 79-88.
Ibid., Vol.I, p. 251. Mariolatry is the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary and her veneration.
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 8, cp. 81.
A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, 2 Vols. (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1896), Vol. I, p. 400. This is from an October 21, 1858 correspondence to Rev. Rowland Williams.
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 50.
Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, op.cit., p. 39. On page 186 in his footnotes, Dr. Ruckman cites Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 50; yet the material is not on that page. He adds that he is referencing that which he heard from Dr. Edward F. Hills in March of 1969. Although this author considers the above statement attributed to Hort by Ruckman as accurate, I have thus far been unable to locate and thereby independently confirm the citation in any of Hort's work at my disposal.
A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 86. Belief that by virtue of ordination into the priesthood, one is given supernatural powers.
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 51.
A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 78.
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 69.
A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 76-77.
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 49.
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 31.
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 449

And Further documentation:

Ibid., Vol. II, p. 155.
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 11.
A.F. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 42.
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 416, also p. 414.
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 52.
Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, op. cit., p. 280.
A. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 117.

There is a lot more specific documentation in the book, specifically 156 references that not only documents Westcott & Hort, but everything else as well.

It is worth the read. I have it in zip format if you would like to read & study it.

God bless,
Stever
philologos wrote:

Quote:
After the "textural Critics" Westcott & Hort- who did not even believe in the Divinity of Christ-


Please give documentary evidence for this statement. How much Westcott have you read?
:-)

 2005/5/30 17:07









 Re:

that is where we disagree. The Scripture that they used is not Spirit breathed, anymore than all of the newer versions in use today.

Several examples of what I mean:
Colossians 1:14
Regarding the son, Jesus, from verse 13, we read:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJ)
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NAS,NIV,RSV)
Comment: "Through his blood" is deleted – a major difference! Beloved, if your "Bible" does not contain these three words, someone has tampered with it such that it is no longer the Word of God. If it is wrong here how can you be certain that many other such omissions do not exist?
First Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJ)
This verse, as recorded in the King James, clearly teaches that Jesus is God!
And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. (NAS,NIV,RSV,NEB)
Comment: There is a great difference between someone named "he" being manifest in the flesh and "God". By changing "God" to "He who", the fact that Jesus is God is removed. This is one of the most powerful and clear verses in all of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ Jesus – the alteration therefore is seen as a direct attack upon His deity.
Over 300 mss read "God was manifest", only 8 mss say something else; of those 8, five say "who" instead of "God" and three have private interpretations. This means that of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that bear witness to the true reading of this verse, 97% agree with the King James as opposed to 2% that read "who".
The verse should read as the 1611 KJB has rendered it, but the question that should be burning in the mind of the reader is "why did the other translations chose the minority text"? The reason will be forthcoming in later chapters – but for now, let us continue with the exposé.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJ)
"A young woman is going to have a baby." (Jerusalem Version)
"A young woman who is pregnant will have a son." (Good News)
"Behold a young woman shall conceive ..." (RSV)
Comment: There is nothing new about a young woman's having a baby, yet this is supposed to be a sign whereby God is promising deliverance in an almost impossible situation!
The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T. It should be rendered "virgin" here for although "almah" could mean "young woman", every time it is used in the Old Testament the context demands that it means "virgin". The other six times it is translated "virgin" in most of the various versions. One wonders why the sudden departure in the verse before us. The miracle was going to be that a virgin was going to conceive!
Furthermore, the New Testament confirms the fact in Mat.1:23 that Mary was a virgin: "Behold, a virgin (Greek = "parthenos" = parqeno") shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
All languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" is meant a word that has many shades of meaning or even widely different meanings, i.e., the word "cool" in today's English. Such words can defy etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words which have a very limited narrow meaning – often only one possible sense. We begin to see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word to man in two tongues. Weak words in one which could lead to confusion could be covered by strong words in the other by cross references and quotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah" (though we have already shown that by its Biblical usage it is not so weak) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word "parthenos" which can only be translated one way – "virgin".
Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary definition or etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science. It should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.
The translators of the modern versions are well aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos" hence the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into any other word represents deliberate willful alteration of the Word of God. In denying the virgin birth of Christ, they are saying:
1) Jesus was a bastard as Mary was unmarried when she conceived;
2) Mary was a fornicator;
3) God has lied to us in Mat. 1:22-23;
4) Christ was not God, not deity (having a physical father, He was only human); and
5) Christ was a sinner as he would then be a descendant of Adam and inherit Adam's nature as in Rom. 5:12.

The three verses placed before us should serve as an excellent barometer for the reader to use in determining whether a given version is trustworthy or not.

God bless

Stever

 2005/5/30 17:21









 Re:

My previous post was in response to Robert Wurtz and was in regards to his comments on Catholicism.

God Bless,

Stever

 2005/5/30 17:42









 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Quote:
After the "textural Critics" Westcott & Hort- who did not even believe in the Divinity of Christ-


Please give documentary evidence for this statement. How much Westcott have you read?



Are you aware that Westcott doubted the Biblical account of miracles?
From the Book- Which Version is the Bible:

. Writing in his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."
Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their "Introduction", they impiously stated:
. Writing in his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."
Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their "Introduction", they impiously stated:
. Writing in his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned:
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their "Introduction", they impiously stated:
"Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at which such corruptions came in. They may be due to the original writer, or to his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the earliest transcribers." (emphasis author's)

Troubling to you? It is to me because before Wetcott & Hort came on the scene, the Christian knew that he had the very word of God in his hands. Thanks to these two men, who: Did not believe in the Divinity of Christ; Did not believe in the Biblcal account of miracles; and did not believed that the Scripture was Spirit Breathed and that God had the power to Preserve the Scriptures in their original---were able to create misunderstanding tsh their throughout the entire body of Christ with their "work". Sort of like letting the fox take care of the henhouse.

All of the sources for this information is documented in the Book.

God bless,

Stever

 2005/5/30 18:12









 Re:


Dear Ironman:

What they had was the Old Testament. Just like Christ who met the Disciples on the road to Emmaus. He walked them through the entire Old Testament, from one end to the other--with all of the Prophesies about Him, starting with Genesis 3:15.

What we have to day is one new version after another. Every "New" version is copywrited, which means MONEY. Every new version relies upon the corrupt Alexandrian Text. The "blood" is removed and there is mass confustion and no one today can say what the Disciples could say when they were looking at their Bible---This is the very Spirit Breathed Word of God.

God bless,

Stever

Quote:

IRONMAN wrote:
Quote:
How can you have revival without the Bible? If a man doesn't know he has a pure Bible, how can he preach with conviction? I think not having a pure Bible hinders revival. Do you deny this? Can we have revival without a Bible??? Maybe you want fluff, but I want fire!



Perhaps revival is possible with God? All the apostles of old were fisherman who didn't have a copy of the holy writs and yet they had a hand in the changing of the word? Is Christ not THE word of God who was with Him in the beginning?The one who was made flesh? It would seem that the word of God is a bit more than just text. Perhaps I am wrong though.

 2005/5/30 19:43





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy