| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: | | Quote:
W_D_J_D wrote:
READ ONLY THE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!
Anyone for any other version...is of the devil......i dont care if it is in greek IT HAS TO BE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol ok no......
lets not go to extremes....
Hey here's a question....was King James a christian?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:
The above is real cute. Christinyou just responded to my post about the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ. The NIV and all of the newer versions have taken Christ out of the 1st Prophecy in the Bible, and replaced Jesus Christ with mankind. The Pope really wants it this way, as the Catholic Church believes that the Pope will bring in the 1,000 year reign on this earth. Jesus Christ's return to this earth is no where to be found in their doctrine. There is no room for Christ to come back and rule and reign in their Gospel.
The problem is, and continues to be, the Protestant Bible, the King James, has been hijacked by the NIV and all of the newer versions. Many, many of the truths in the King James are gone, and are either missing or at the very least waterered down. Why is the Protestant Body of Christ so confused about God's total abhorance to sin? Because the Church today is steeped in sin. Even Pastors are having difficulty with pornography on the internet. How can that be? Because their Protestant Bible has been replaced with a counterfeit Bible, with the blessings of the Catholic Church.
Well, there it is, that is my two cents as well.
God bless,
Stever
|
|  2006/4/26 2:30 | | W_D_J_D
Member
Joined: 2006/1/13
Posts: 119
| | Re: | | funny you say that stever......
i read the NIV and i still was very strong in the faith.....
ummm as for the reason for the downfall??? its not because of the NIV and others it is because of man kinds sin......false prophets, the prosperity, the lack of prayer....the everything... its not because of the NIV.....
lol having said that again, i would like to say also that people who i meet that have very week theology usualy read the NIV...(coincidence)??? perhaps it is now they have fallen away from the truth the dont have the dexterity to stick with the KJV and opt for the easier read....
i dunno
God bless ya all! |
| | 2006/4/26 2:46 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
W_D_J_D wrote:
funny you say that stever......
i read the NIV and i still was very strong in the faith.....
ummm as for the reason for the downfall??? its not because of the NIV and others it is because of man kinds sin......false prophets, the prosperity, the lack of prayer....the everything... its not because of the NIV.....
lol having said that again, i would like to say also that people who i meet that have very week theology usualy read the NIV...(coincidence)??? perhaps it is now they have fallen away from the truth the dont have the dexterity to stick with the KJV and opt for the easier read....
i dunno
God bless ya all!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:
The reason can be found within God's word. The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles. The Minority Text comes straight from Origen, the heretic, as well as the work of Eusebius. Then later, Westcott and Hort got involved as well. They re-wrote the Majority text to satisfy their heresy.
Satan always wants to help out Gods children. If he can make the Word of God LESS, he will do whatever he can. If he can take out God's Truth, he will do it. How? Simplify it, make it easier to read, that should hook them.
You said it all in your previous post:
"Having said that....i must say that i do not condemn others for reading easier to read versions...the best out of these is the NKJV."
The New King James also relies on the Minority Text, and is not a modernization of the King James, that relies totally on the Majority Text.
The New King James has a very little, wee bit of the majority text, but a tremendous amount of the minority text.
Check it out, and you will see it plain and clear.
God bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/4/26 3:02 | | Combat_Chuck
Member
Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202
| | Re: | | Quote:
Stever's response:
The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.
The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???
_________________
Combat Chuck
|
| | 2006/4/26 3:17 | Profile |
| | Re: Erasmus restores the Scriptures | | Quote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:
Quote:
Stever's response:
The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.
The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response: The Body of Christ today knows little to nothing about the history of the Protestant Bible.
This is from the book by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones entitled "Which Version is the Bible" and hopefully will provide some light on the matter:
ERASMUS RESTORES THE SCRIPTURES (THE RECEIVED TEXT)
The Greek upon which the King James translation was based was first printed in A.D. 1516 at Basle, Switzerland, under the editorship of the famous Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus. As a Scholar, Erasmus was without peer the intellectual giant of Europe in his day. Erasmus was ever at work, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing, writing and publishing.
Europe was rocked by his works which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, and the general bigotry and wickedness within the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the "Fathers" (letters etc. written by the early Church pastors which taken as a whole contain almost the entire New Testament). The study of these letters is called Patristics. Today, many who deprecate the pure teachings of the Received Text dismiss Erasmus and pervert the facts in order to belittle his work. While he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price! The Emperor of Germany likewise. Indeed, the Pope offered him the position of Cardinal. Erasmus resolutely declined not being willing to compromise his beliefs or conscience. France and Spain beckoned him to their realm while Holland proudly claimed him as her most distinguished son.
Book after book came from his labors. The demand for them was overwhelming. His crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. AT LAST, AFTER ONE THOUSAND YEARS, THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS PRINTED IN ITS ORIGINAL TONGUE (A.D.1516). Astonished and confounded, Europe the intellectual, civilized cradle of the world deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospel.
In a letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter
Barbirius, Erasmus wrote:
"I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee PRETENDED to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars (proof), and could not have them." (Edward Lee afterwards became Archbishop of York).
Consider and reflect upon this the foremost scholar in the entire civilized world said the work was his "best". Such men have both egos and detractors. Erasmus would never have put his name on an undertaking which would have left him exposed and defenseless before his enemies and critics.
When Erasmus came to Basle in A.D. 1515 for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek New Testament, he had only five Greek cursive minuscules of the New Testament at his disposal. For the most part, he utilized a 15th century manuscript for the Gospels but used an 11th or 12th century manuscript on occasion. He used a 12th or 13th century manuscript for the Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus had a 15th century manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles which he also used occasionally, and he had a 12th century manuscript of Revelation. The last six verses of the Revelation manuscript were missing so he used the Latin Vulgate version to complete the chapter.
Erasmus' Greek New Testament has been often criticized on the grounds that he had so little data at his command from which to draw and that they were "late" copies. However, Erasmus did not go to the task unprepared. Although he had only five late minuscules, he had already translated a Latin New Testament and in preparation for this labor had collected and gathered variant readings from many Greek manuscripts. He journeyed all over Europe to libraries and to anyone from whom he could gather readings from manuscripts. Erasmus organized his findings and made notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts and Erasmus divided them into two camps, i.e., THOSE HE CONSIDERED SPURIOUS AND THOSE HE DEEMED GENUINE AND TRUSTWORTHY. The spurious group was a small percentage of the whole and mainly agreed with the Latin Vulgate readings (that is what the Catholic Bible relies on 100%). Of the several hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text.
Naturalistic critics think that the presence and availability for Erasmus' use of these five Basle minuscules was merely an unhappy accident. But these men do not reckon sufficiently with the providence of God that God has promised to overlook His Word. The text which Erasmus published was really not his own.
It was taken virtually without change from these few manuscripts which God providentially placed at his disposal. The text contained in these manuscripts eventually came to be known as the "Textus Receptus" (the Received Text).
To emphasize and demonstrate the above, we quote the late Herman C. Hoskier. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. His conclusion, based upon the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, was:
"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better ... "
As Moorman relates, this is truly a powerful example of God's guiding providence in preserving the true text though but one late mss containing the Revelation was available to Erasmus at Basle.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will continue this in additional posts.
God bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/4/27 23:32 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:
Quote:
Stever's response:
The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.
The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???[/quote}
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:
Erasmus had all of the writings of the Early Church Fathers at his disposal. In these writings, almost the entire New Testament can be found in them.
THE RESEARCH OF JOHN BURGON AND EDWARD MILLER INTO PATRISTIC QUOTATION (THE QUOTATIONS OF SCRIPTURE FOUND IN THE LETTERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS)
Apart from searching through the writings of the Church Fathers individually, a primary source for information his been the massive compilation of John Burgon. He gathered 86,489 patristic Scripture quotations. These are bound in 16 volumes and located at the British Museum. After his death, Edward Miller gathered and edited much of Dr. Burgon's material. He prepared a book entitled. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" (1896).
In this work, he undertakes the mammoth task of categorizing the patristic quotations according to its textual type. Below is a table of 76 Church Fathers who died before 400 AD. The number of titles each refers to the TR (Textus Receptus that fuels the King James) or WH (Westcott-Hort who fueled all of the "New Bible versions) kind of text is tabulated. The overall ratio was three to two in favor of the TR. That is 60% for the Textus Receptus and 40% for the Westcott-Hort Minority Text.
Kenyon says the following about Miller's research -
The results of his examination are stated by him is follows. Taking the Greek and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before AD 400, their quotations are found to support the TR in 2,630 instances (that is the distinctive TR readings), the WH text in 1753. Nor is this majority due solely to the writers who belong to the end of this period.
On the contrary, if only the earliest writers be taken, from Clement of Rome to Irenaeus and Hippolytus (AD 97 - 236), the majority in favor of the Textus Receptus is proportionately even greater, 151 (64%) to 84 (36%).
Only in the Western and Alexandrian writers do we find approximate equality of votes on either side. Further, if a select list of- thirty important passages be taken for detailed examination, the preponderance of early preponderance evidence in favor of the Textus Receptus is seen to be no less than 530 (75.7%)to 170 (24.28%), a quite overwhelming majority."
Kenyon attempted to refute this evidence by stating that later editors "doctored" the patristic quotations to align them with the TR. See Pickering for a refutation of this totally unworthy objection. If this did occur, a wide variation among different editors of a given Father's quotations should be the norm. Millers research did not find very much variation. Kenyon admitted as much when he said, "the errors arising from this source would hardly affect the general result."
Edward Miller's survey and tabulation is according to Pickering limited to the four Gospels. In this day of the computer, it would be interesting to see a complete tabulation. However, surveys since Miller's time in the remainder of the NT show the same preponderance of support for the TR (Textus Receptus).
It should also be noted that Miller's tabulations included only those readings which were either accepted as being a part of the TR tradition, or were accepted by Westcott and Hort in their critical text. Variant readings outside of those were not included.
Wilbur Pickering gives the following abbreviated summary:
"TR readings are recognized most notably by - "
100 - l50 AD The Didache, Diognetus, Justin Martyr
150 - 200 AD Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus
200 - 250 AD Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, Origen
200 - 300 AD Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Archelaus
300 - 400 AD Eusebius, Athanasius, Macarius Magnus, Hilary, Didymus, Basil, Titus of Bostra, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Epiphanius, Ambrose.
SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER
1. Most tampering of the text took place before 200 and most was done in the Western areas furthest from the location of the original autographs (Try Alexandria, Egypt).
Colwell says, "The overwhelming majority of variant readings were created before the year 200." Scrivener says, "The worst corruptions to which the NT his ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed.'' Kilpatrick states, "The creation of new variants ceased by 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them."
Between 18 and 24 of the 27 Neow Testament books were written originally to cities in Asia Minor and Greece. None was written to Alexandria. But it was the Western and Alexandrian Fathers who became the most prominent and prolific in their writings, and being far from the autographs could take greater liberties and were more susceptible to a corrupted text. Most patristic quotations are from precisely these fathers. Yet even with this disadvantage, the TR has a 3:2 majority. After this period of disruption is passed, textual history shows the TR regaining an overwhelming advantage.
The above is borne out by Miller's research. "The advantage of the TR over the WH before Origen was 2:1, setting aside Justin Martyr, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. If these four are included, the advantage of the TR drops to 1.33:1, since the confusion which is most obvious in Origen is already observable in these men. From Origen to Macarius Magnus (early 300's), the advantage drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 AD it is back up to 2:1."
2. There is the Scripture principle, that "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." I Cor. 1:27. Regarding the preservation and transmission of the NT Scriptures, it is believed that when all the evidence is in this principle will have been shown to be upheld. In speaking to Dr. Tom Strouse, he felt that John Burgon erred at this point - that it was not primarily through the famous bishops and fathers that the Word was preserved, but rather the humble believer. The priesthood of the believer was the means, not ecclesiastical authority.
A survey of the leading Fathers shows much doctrinal deviation. Consider our own day; is it the famous church leaders who contend for the preservation and purity of God's Word, or humble believers scattered around the world. It his always been, "the common people heard Him gladly. Luther called the Church Fathers, the Church "Babies"!
3. Pre 400 AD patristic citations favor the TR over the WH by a 3:2 margin. But this gives the impression that the WH represents a unified kind of text. It does not! Whereas the TR is reasonably unified, the WH is a hopeless Grouping of conflicting readings. The only thing they have in common is their disagreement with the TR, but conflict among themselves is almost as great. There is only one textual family, the TR. Everything else is confusion.
Thus the main pillar of the Westcott and Hort theory ("Readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found prior to 350") - has completely crumbled in the light of the evidence.
Miller concludes -
"As far as the writers who died before 400 AD are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the TR as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the TR was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let anyone who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or the text of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has now been placed before the reader."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To be continued- I hope that you have come this far. It is worth the read.
God Bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/4/27 23:57 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:
Quote:
Stever's response:
The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.
The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever Continues:
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE EARLY PATRISTIC SUPPORT FOR RECEIVED TEXT (KING JAMES)READINGS
ASSERTION-"There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century," D. A. Carson.
The above is a false assertion!
DOCUMENTATION:
KJV Mark 1:l, 2
Irenaeus (130-202) "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ., the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets..." "Mark...does thus commence his Gospel narrative; 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets,.., Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him...whom they confessed as God and Lord" (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).
KJV Mark 16:19
Irenaeus (130-202) "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." ''Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: so then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies III:10:6).
KJV Luke 22:44
Justin (100-165) "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible., let this cup pass.'" (Trypho 103:24).
KJV Jn 1:18
Irenaeus (130-202) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Against Heresies III:11:6), 'the only begotten Son, who..." (IV:20:6) "the only begotten Son, which (IV:20:11).
KJV John. 3:l3
Hippolytus (170-236) "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I:1:4).
KJV John 5:3, 4
Tertullian (160- 221) "...waiting for the moving of the water, For an angel went down at a certain season unto the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." "if it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in Waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain."(on Baptism I:1:5)
KJV Jn. 6:69
Irenaeus (130-.202) "And we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ the Son of the living God." "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God..." (Against Heresies III:11:6).
KJV John. 14:l7 " ... but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
P66 (c. 200) " ... shall be in you."
KJV Acts 8:36 - 37 "
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Cyprian (200-258) "In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:43).
KJV I Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
Ignatius (35-116) "God was in the flesh" (To the Ephesians I:1:7).
Hippolytus (170-236) "God was manifested in the flesh" (Against the Heresies of Noetus I:1:17).
Dionysius (3rd cent.) "For God was manifested in the flesh" (Conciliations I:1:853).
KJV I John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Cyprian (200-258) "The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)
KJV Rev. 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Tertullian (160-221) "Blessed are they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life, and over the gates., for entering into the holy city." (On Modesty I:19:2).
CONCLUSION
KJV II Pet. 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Tertullian (160-221) "Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of its own purposes." (On Prescriptions Against Heresies I:7:l).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I truly pray that this has opened some eyes.
God bless,
Stever
|
| | 2006/4/28 0:05 | |
|
