SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Evan Roberts Quote
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: The Fruit of the Text

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

The Bible tells us:
By their fruits ye shall know them. Spceifically, in Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus Christ tells us:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
[b] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.[/b]

The “fruits” of the reformation, brought about by the Textus Receptus”, has changed the world, has changed history! It has changed it by a religious revolution in the Christian Church, which ended the ecclesiastical supremacy of the pope in Western Christendom, and resulted in the establishment of The Protesant Church. It brought about the reading of scripture in the national language of the people, instead of in Latin, a language that the common man could not understand. It also brought about our Judicial System, Private Property rights, the Constitutional Republic of America, etc. etc. etc.

What is the "fruit" of Catholocism? What is the fruit of the newer Bible versions (90 and counting now) since 1881?

The Fruit of the Textus Receptus, the Protestant Bible of the reformation, the King James Bible. This is only a small sample of the "fruit" of the majority text, the Textus Receptus, that created the King James Bible:

From Encarta:

Reformation, great 16th-century religious revolution in the Christian church, which ended the ecclesiastical supremacy of the pope in Western Christendom and resulted in the establishment of the Protestant churches. With the Renaissance that preceded and the French Revolution that followed, the Reformation completely altered the medieval way of life in Western Europe and initiated the era of modern history. Although the movement dates from the early 16th century, when Martin Luther first defied the authority of the church, the conditions that led to his revolutionary stand had existed for hundreds of years and had complex doctrinal, political, economic, and cultural elements.

[b]CONDITIONS PRECEDING REFORMATION[/b]

From the Revival of the Holy Roman Empire by Otto I in 962, popes and emperors had been engaged in a continuous contest for supremacy. This conflict had generally resulted in victory for the papal side, but created bitter antagonism between Rome and the German Empire; this antagonism was augmented in the 14th and 15th centuries by the further development of German nationalist sentiment. Resentment against papal taxation and against submission to ecclesiastical officials of the distant and foreign papacy was manifested in other countries of Europe. In England the beginning of the movement toward ultimate independence from papal jurisdiction was the enactment of the statutes of Mortmain in 1279, Provisors in 1351, and Praemunire in 1393, which greatly reduced the power of the church to withdraw land from the control of the civil government, to make appointments to ecclesiastical offices, and to exercise judicial authority.

The 14th-century English reformer[b] John Wycliffe[/b] boldly attacked the papacy itself, striking at the sale of indulgences, pilgrimages, the excessive veneration of saints, and the moral and intellectual standards of ordained priests. To reach the common people, he translated the Bible into English and delivered sermons in English, rather than Latin. His teachings spread to Bohemia, where they found a powerful advocate in the religious reformer Jan Hus [b](John Huss)[/b]. The execution of Huss as a heretic in 1415 led directly to the Hussite Wars, a violent expression of Bohemian nationalism, suppressed with difficulty by the combined forces of the Holy Roman emperor and the pope. The wars were a precursor of religious civil war in Germany in Luther's time. In France in 1516 a concordat between the king and the pope placed the French church substantially under royal authority. Earlier concordats with other national monarchies also prepared the way for the rise of autonomous national churches.
[b]As early as the 13th century the papacy had become vulnerable to attack because of the greed, immorality, and ignorance of many of its officials in all ranks of the hierarchy. Vast tax-free church possessions, constituting, according to varying estimates, as much as one-fifth to one-third of the lands of Europe, incited the envy and resentment of the land-poor peasantry. The so-called Babylonian Captivity of popes at Avignon in the 14th century and the ensuing Western Schism (see Schism, Great) gravely impaired the authority of the church and divided its adherents into partisans of one or another pope. Church officials recognized the need for reform; ambitious programs for the reorganization of the entire hierarchy were debated at the Council of Constance from 1414 to 1418, but no program gained the support of a majority, and no radical changes were instituted at that time.[/b]


Humanism, the revival of classical learning and speculative inquiry beginning in the 15th century in Italy during the early Renaissance, displaced Scholasticism as the principal philosophy of Western Europe and deprived church leaders of the monopoly on learning that they had previously held. Laypersons studied ancient literature, and scholars such as the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla critically appraised translations of the Bible and other documents that formed the basis for much of church dogma and tradition. The invention of printing with movable metal type greatly increased the circulation of books and spread new ideas throughout Europe. Humanists outside Italy, such as [b]Desiderius Erasmus in the Netherlands, John Colet and Sir Thomas More in England, Johann Reuchlin in Germany, and Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples in France,[/b] applied the new learning to the evaluation of church practices and the development of a more accurate knowledge of the Scriptures. Their scholarly studies laid the basis on which Luther, the French theologian and religious reformer[b] John Calvin, and other reformers subsequently claimed the Bible rather than the church as the source of all religious authority.[/b]
NATIONAL MOVEMENTS
The Protestant revolution was initiated in Germany by Luther in 1517, when he published his 95 theses challenging the theory and practice of indulgences.

Germany and the Lutheran Reformation

Papal authorities ordered[b] Luther[/b] to retract and submit to church authority, but he became more intransigent, appealing for reform, attacking the sacramental system, and urging that religion rest on individual faith based on the guidance contained in the Bible. Threatened with excommunication by the pope, Luther publicly burned the bull, or papal decree, of excommunication and with it a volume of canon law. This act of defiance symbolized a definitive break with the entire system of the Western church. In an attempt to stem the tide of revolt, Charles V, Holy Roman emperor, and the German princes and ecclesiastics assembled in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, and ordered Luther to recant. He refused and was declared an outlaw. For almost a year he remained in hiding, writing pamphlets expounding his principles and translating the New Testament into German. Although his writings were prohibited by imperial edict, they were openly sold and were powerful instruments in turning the great German cities into centers of Lutheranism.

The reform movement made tremendous strides among the people, and when Luther left retirement he returned to his home at Wittenberg as a revolutionary leader. Germany had become sharply divided along religious and economic lines. Those most interested in preserving the traditional order, including the emperor, most of the princes, and the higher clergy, supported the Roman Catholic church. Lutheranism was supported by the North German princes, the lower clergy, the commercial classes, and large sections of the peasantry, who welcomed change as offering an opportunity for greater independence in both the religious and economic spheres. Open warfare between the two factions broke out in 1524 with the beginning of the Peasants' War. The war was basically an attempt on the part of the peasants to better their economic lot. Their program, inspired by the teachings of Luther and couched in religious terms, called for emancipation from a number of the services traditionally claimed by their clerical and lay landlords. Luther disapproved of the use of his demands for reform to justify a radical disruption of the existing economy, but in the interests of a peaceful settlement of the conflict he urged the landlords to satisfy the claims of the peasants. He soon turned against the peasants, however, and, in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Peasants (1525), violently condemned them for resorting to violence.
The peasants were defeated in 1525, but the cleavage between Roman Catholics and Lutherans increased. A degree of compromise was reached at the Diet of Speyer in 1526, when it was agreed that German princes wishing to practice Lutheranism should be free to do so. At a second Diet of Speyer, convened three years later, the Roman Catholic majority abrogated the agreement. The Lutheran minority protested against this action and became known as Protestants; thus the first Protestants were Lutherans, the term being extended subsequently to include all the Christian sects that developed from the revolt against Rome.

In 1530 the German scholar and religious reformer Melanchthon drew up a conciliatory statement of the Lutheran tenets, known as the Augsburg Confession, which was submitted to Emperor Charles V and to the Roman Catholic faction. Although it failed to reconcile the differences between Roman Catholics and Lutherans, it remained the basis of the new Lutheran church and creed. Subsequently, a series of wars with France and the Ottoman Empire prevented Charles V from turning his military forces against the Lutherans, but in 1546 the emperor was finally free of international commitments; and in alliance with the pope and with the aid of Duke Maurice of Saxony, he made war against the Schmalkaldic League, a defensive association of Protestant princes. The Roman Catholic forces were successful at first. Later, however, Duke Maurice went over to the Protestant side, and Charles V was obliged to make peace. The religious civil war ended with the religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555. Its terms provided that each of the rulers of the German states, which numbered about 300, choose between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism and enforce the chosen faith upon the ruler's subjects. Lutheranism, by then the religion of about half the population of Germany, thus finally gained official recognition, and the ancient concept of the religious unity of a single Christian community in Western Europe under the supreme authority of the pope was destroyed

Scandinavia

In the Scandinavian countries the Reformation was accomplished peacefully as Lutheranism spread northward from Germany. The monarchical governments of Denmark and Sweden themselves sponsored the reform movement and broke completely with the papacy. In 1536 a national assembly held in Copenhagen abolished the authority of the Roman Catholic bishops throughout Denmark and the then subject lands of Norway and Iceland; and Christian III, king of Denmark and Norway, invited Luther's friend, the German religious reformer Johann Bugenhagen, to organize in Denmark a national Lutheran church on the basis of the Augsburg Confession. In Sweden the brothers Olaus Petri and Laurentius Petri led the movement for the adoption of Lutheranism as the state religion. The adoption was effected in 1529 with the support of Gustav I Vasa, king of Sweden, and by the decision of the Swedish diet.

Switzerland
The early reform movement in Switzerland, contemporaneous with the Reformation in Germany, was led by the Swiss pastor Huldreich Zwingli, who became known in 1518 through his vigorous denunciation of the sale of indulgences. Zwingli expressed his opposition to abuses of ecclesiastical authority by sermons, conversations in the marketplace, and public disputations before the town council. As did Luther and other reformers, he considered the Bible the sole source of moral authority and strove to eliminate everything in the Roman Catholic system not specifically enjoined in the Scriptures. In Zürich from 1523 to 1525, under Zwingli's leadership, religious relics were burned, ceremonial processions and the adoration of the saints were abolished, priests and monks were released from their vows of celibacy, and the Mass was replaced by a simpler communion service. These changes by which the city revolted from the Roman Catholic church were accomplished legally and quietly through votes of the Zürich town council. The chief supporters of the innovations, the commercial classes, expressed through them their independence from the Roman church and from the German Empire. Other Swiss towns, such as Basel and Bern, adopted similar reforms, but the conservative peasantry of the forest cantons adhered to Roman Catholicism. As in Germany, the authority of the central government was too weak to enforce religious conformity and prevent civil war. Two short-lived conflicts broke out between Protestant and Roman Catholic cantons in 1529 and 1531. In the second of these, which took place at Kappel, Zwingli was slain. Peace was made and each canton was allowed to choose its religion. Roman Catholicism prevailed in the provincial mountainous parts of the country, and Protestantism in the great cities and fertile valleys. Substantially the same division has continued to the present time in Switzerland.
In the generation after Luther and Zwingli the dominating figure of the Reformation was Calvin, the French Protestant theologian who fled religious persecution in his native country and in 1536 settled in the newly independent republic of Geneva. Calvin led in the strict enforcement of reform measures previously instituted by the town council of Geneva and insisted on further reforms, including the congregational singing of the Psalms as part of church worship, the teaching of a catechism and confession of faith to children, the enforcement of a strict moral discipline in the community by the pastors and members of the church, and the excommunication of notorious sinners. Calvin's church organization was democratic and incorporated ideas of representative government. Pastors, teachers, presbyters, and deacons were elected to their official positions by members of the congregation.
Although church and state were officially separate, they cooperated so closely that Geneva was virtually a theocracy. To enforce discipline of morals, Calvin instituted a rigid inspection of household conduct and organized a consistory, composed of pastors and laypersons, with wide powers of compulsion over the community. The dress and personal behavior of citizens were prescribed to the minutest detail; dancing, card playing, dicing, and other recreations were forbidden; blasphemy and ribaldry were severely punished. Under this severe regime, nonconformists were persecuted and even put to death. To encourage the reading and understanding of the Bible, all citizens were provided with at least an elementary education. In 1559 Calvin founded a university in Geneva that became famous for training pastors and teachers. More than any other reformer, Calvin organized the contemporary diversities of Protestant thought into a clear and logical system. The circulation of his writings, his influence as an educator, and his great ability in organizing church and state in terms of reform created an international following and gave the Reformed churches, as Protestantism was called in Switzerland, France, and Scotland, a thoroughly Calvinistic stamp, both in theology and organization.

France
The Reformation in France was initiated early in the 16th century by a group of mystics and humanists who gathered at Meaux near Paris under the leadership of Lefèvre d'Étaples. Like Luther, Lefèvre d'Étaples studied the Epistles of St. Paul and derived from them a belief in justification by individual faith alone; he also denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. In 1523 he translated the entire New Testament into French. At first his writings were well received by church and state officials, but as Luther's radical doctrines began to spread into France, Lefèvre d'Ètaples's work was seen to be similar, and he and his followers were persecuted. Many leading Protestants fled from France and settled in the republic of Geneva or Switzerland until strengthened in numbers and philosophy by the Calvinistic reformation in Geneva. More than 120 pastors trained in Geneva by Calvin returned to France before 1567 to proselytize for Protestantism. In 1559 delegates from 66 Protestant churches in France met at a national synod in Paris to draw up a confession of faith and rule of discipline based on those practiced at Geneva.

In this way the first national Protestant church in France was organized; its members were known as Huguenots. Despite all efforts to suppress them, the Huguenots grew into a formidable body, and the division of France into Protestant and Roman Catholic factions led to a generation of civil wars (1562-1598). One of the notorious incidents of this struggle was the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, in which a large number of Protestants perished. Under the Protestant Henry IV, king of France, the Huguenots triumphed for a short time, but as Paris and more than nine-tenths of the French people remained Roman Catholic, the king deemed it expedient to become a convert to Roman Catholicism. He protected his Huguenot adherents, however, by issuing in 1598 the Edict of Nantes, which granted Protestants a measure of freedom. The edict was revoked in 1685, and Protestantism was stamped out of the country.

The Netherlands
Protestantism was welcomed in the Netherlands by the powerful literate bourgeoisie that had developed during the Middle Ages. Militarily more powerful in this territory than in the German states, Emperor Charles V attempted to halt the spread of Protestant doctrines by public burnings of Luther's books and by the establishment in 1522 of the Inquisition. These measures were unsuccessful, however, and by the middle of the 16th century Protestantism had a firm hold on the northern provinces, known as Holland; the southern provinces (now Belgium) remained predominantly Roman Catholic. Most of the Dutch embraced Calvinism, which served as a potent bond in their nationalistic struggle against their Spanish Roman Catholic overlords. They revolted in 1568 and warfare continued until 1648, when Spain relinquished all claims to the country by the terms of the Peace of Westphalia. The former Spanish Netherlands then became an independent Protestant nation.

Scotland
In Scotland as in other countries the Reformation originated among elements of the population already hostile to the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic clergy was held in general disrepute by the people, and remnants of Lollardy, or the doctrines of John Wycliffe, were still prevalent. The merchants and the minor nobility were especially active in furthering the Scottish Reformation as a vehicle for national self-determination and independence from England and France as well as for religious reform. Consequently, Protestantism spread rapidly despite repressive measures by the pro-Roman Catholic Scottish government. The early religious reform movement, initiated by such leaders as the martyr Patrick Hamilton, was under Lutheran influence. The actual revolution, accomplished under the leadership of the religious reformer John Knox, an ardent disciple of Calvin, established Calvinism as the national religion of Scotland. In 1560 Knox persuaded the Scottish Parliament to adopt a confession of faith and book of discipline modeled on those in use at Geneva. The Parliament subsequently created the Scottish Presbyterian church and provided for the government of the church by local kirk (Scottish word for church) sessions and by a general assembly representing the local churches of the entire country. The Roman Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, attempted to overthrow the new Protestant church, but after a 7-year struggle, she herself was forced to leave the country. Calvinism was triumphant in Scotland except for a few districts in the north, in which Roman Catholicism remained strong, particularly among the noble families.

England

The English revolt from Rome differed from the revolts in Germany, Switzerland, and France in two respects. First, England was a compact nation with a strong central government; therefore, instead of splitting the country into regional factions or parties and ending in civil war, the revolt was national—the king and Parliament acted together in transferring to the king the ecclesiastical jurisdiction previously exercised by the pope. Second, in the continental countries agitation for religious reform among the people preceded and caused the political break with the papacy; in England, on the other hand, the political break came first, as a result of a decision by King Henry VIII to divorce his first wife, and the change in religious doctrine came afterward in the reigns of King Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth I. Henry VIII wished to divorce his Roman Catholic wife, Catherine of Aragón, because the marriage had not produced a male heir and he feared disruption of his dynasty. His marriage to Catherine, which normally would have been illegal under ecclesiastical law because she was the widow of his brother, had been allowed only by special dispensation from the pope. Henry claimed that the papal dispensation contravened ecclesiastical law and that the marriage was therefore invalid. The pope upheld the validity of the dispensation and refused to annul the marriage. Henry then requested the opinion of noted reformers and the faculties of the great European universities.

Eight university faculties supported his claim. Zwingli and the German-Swiss theologian Johannes Oecolampadius also considered his marriage null, but Luther and Melanchthon thought it binding. The king followed a course of expediency; he married Anne Boleyn in 1533, and two months later he had the archbishop of Canterbury pronounce his divorce from Catherine. Henry was then excommunicated by the pope, but retaliated in 1534 by having Parliament pass an act appointing the king and his successors supreme head of the Church of England, thus establishing an independent national Anglican church. Further legislation cut off the pope's English revenues and ended his political and religious authority in England. Between 1536 and 1539 the monasteries were suppressed and their property seized by the king. Henry had no interest in going beyond these changes, which were motivated principally by political rather than doctrinal considerations. Indeed, to prevent the spread of Lutheranism, he secured from Parliament in 1539 the severe body of edicts called the Act of Six Articles, which made it heretical to deny the main theological tenets of medieval Roman Catholicism. Obedience to the papacy remained a criminal offense. Consequently, many Lutherans were burned as heretics, and Roman Catholics who refused to recognize the ecclesiastical supremacy of the king were executed.
Under King Edward VI, the Protestant doctrines and practices abhorred by Henry VIII were introduced into the Anglican church. The Act of Six Articles was repealed in 1547, and continental reformers, such as the German Martin Bucer, were invited to preach in England. In 1549 a complete vernacular Book of Common Prayer was issued to provide uniformity of service in the Anglican church, and its use was enforced by law. A second Prayer Book was published in 1552, and a new creed in 42 articles was adopted. Mary I attempted, however, to restore Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and during her reign many Protestants were burned at the stake. Others fled to continental countries, where their religious opinions often became more radical by contact with Calvinism. A final settlement was reached under Queen Elizabeth I in 1563. Protestantism was restored, and Roman Catholics were often persecuted. The 42 articles of the Anglican creed adopted under Edward VI were reduced to the present Thirty-nine Articles. This creed is Protestant and closer to Lutheranism than to Calvinism, but the episcopal organization and ritual of the Anglican church is substantially the same as that of the Roman Catholic church. Large numbers of people in Elizabeth's time did not consider the Church of England sufficiently reformed and non-Roman. They were known as dissenters or nonconformists and eventually formed or became members of numerous Calvinist sects such as the Brownists, Presbyterians, Puritans, Separatists, and Quakers.
Minor Sects
Besides the three great churches—Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican—formed during the Reformation, a large number of small sects also arose as a natural consequence of Protestant repudiation of traditional authority and exaltation of private judgment. One of the most prominent of the smaller sects, the Anabaptists, found many adherents throughout Europe, particularly in Germany, where they played an important part in the Peasants' War. They were persecuted by Catholics as well as by Lutherans, Zwinglians, and other Protestants, and many of them were put to death. Another prominent denomination, the Unitarians, included a considerable number of followers in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland.

________________________________________
RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION

[b]Despite the diversity of revolutionary forces in the 16th century, the Reformation had largely consistent results throughout Western Europe. In general, the power and wealth lost by the feudal nobility and the Roman Catholic hierarchy passed to the middle classes and to monarchical rulers. Various regions of Europe gained political, religious, and cultural independence. Even in countries such as France and the region now known as Belgium,where Roman Catholicism continued to prevail, a new individualism and nationalism in culture and politics developed. The Protestant emphasis on personal judgment furthered the development of democratic governments based on the collective choice of individual voters. The destruction of the medieval system of authority removed traditional religious restrictions on trade and banking, and opened the way for the growth of modern capitalism. During the Reformation national languages and literature were greatly advanced by the wide dissemination of religious literature written in the languages of the people, rather than in Latin. Popular education was also stimulated through the new schools founded by Colet in England, Calvin in Geneva, and the Protestant princes in Germany. Religion became less the province of a highly privileged clergy and more a direct expression of the beliefs of the people. Religious intolerance, however, raged unabated, and all the sects continued to persecute one another for at least a century.[/b]

What is the fruit of the newer versions, that rely on the corrupt vaticanius and Sinaitcus text, used by the Catholic Church, created by the Gnostics. What is the fruit of the NIV, NASB, American Standard, Revised Standard, Living Bible, New King James Bible, The Message Bible, New American Standard, New American Standard with Apocrypha, New Revised Standard with Apocrypha? All of these newer versions (90 of them now), created since 1881 use the corrupt Vaticanius and Sinaitcus Text as the Catholic Bible. What is the fruit of the Douey-Rheims Bible, The Jerusalem Bible? The same fruit that exists in all of the newer versions of Protestant Bibles published since 1881. What fruit, you ask? The anwer, there is NONE.
General William Booth (1829-1916), who started the Salvation Army in the l800’s to bring the lost to Christ, looking into the future, had this to say about Christianity of the next century:

[b]“In answer to your inquiry, I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.”[/b]

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor[/url]



What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" (it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900's, when it started to get a little support by the Liberal’s in the body of Christ. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line in the 1881 New York Times reads as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808".

Thoughout this 1881 article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James, just like Conservative Protestant Christians do today when comparing the King James Bible to all of the newer versions. In this article, they actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical (plagiarism) on a verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html

[b][color=9933CC]The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]What none of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revision by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort had switched the Authorized version of the New Testament and with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used to create the Catholic Bible. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the [b]SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnosticism! [/b]

In 1881 the Revision committee replaced the text found in the Protestant Bible of the Reformation, the King James Bible that relied on the Textus Recetpus, the Bible that provided FRUIT. They replaced the Textus Receptus with the corrupt text of the Catholic Bible. The Protestant Church rejected this revision. [/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]What is the fruit of the newer versions, created since 1881, ccchhhrrriiisss?
[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/10/29 2:35
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4587


 Re:

Hi waltern...

I haven't had a chance to read this entire, long post yet (although I will). However, I wanted to address the beginning and the end of it.

Quote:
The “fruits” of the reformation, brought about by the Textus Receptus”, has changed the world, has changed history! It has changed it by a religious revolution in the Christian Church, which ended the ecclesiastical supremacy of the pope in Western Christendom, and resulted in the establishment of The Protesant Church.

This seems like an awful lot of speculation regarding the "fruit" or impact of the Textus Receptus. You make it sound like no one ever got saved BEFORE (or perhaps, apart from) the Textus Receptus. Did the Textus Receptus actually begin the Protestant Reformation? Do you have some firsthand source material for this? If memory serves me, I think that there are some Catholic versions of the Bible that are at least partially translated from the Textus Receptus -- as well as quite a few versions that are NOT the KJV.
Quote:
What is the fruit of the newer versions, created since 1881, ccchhhrrriiisss?

Hmmm.... Me?

I was saved and discipled using a New International Version of the Bible. I read it...and read it...and read it...cover to cover...over and over again...until the pages fell out. I then went to the KJV. I began to read it, but would often refer to the Strongs, a Bible dictionary and the NIV for passages that were unclear to my 15 yr old mind. Thankfully, I was able to obtain a Strong's Concordance, an old dictionary and a couple of years of Shakespeare to assist with my comprehension of early 17th Century English vernacular.

Yet my heart was changed and the scales fell from my eyes from reading Matthew 11:28-30...in a NIV.

I know many individuals who have -- believe it or not -- been discipled and even saved as a direct result of a modern version like the NIV. Moreover, I know many individuals who better understand passages by the words of the NIV over the KJV (although some would argue that the KJV is clear to even a child).

Yet this is how these sort of discussions morph over time. The ultimate answer to the debate isn't found in what people think the result of the KJV or NIV was. It isn't in whether someone wants to believe that the KJV (in whichever form it came from 1611 through the version we use today) is the sole "perfect and preserved" Word of God.

The real debate, in my perspective, is in regard to the source material, translation methods and the faith that we have in the translators -- from the sources Erasmus used, to Erasmus himself (the Dutch Catholic Humanist), through the translators of the KJV...as well as the same sort of Scriptural geneology used for a version like the NIV (earliest sources texts, subsequent translations, Wescott and Hort, onward to the committee that translated the NIV). Yet we go in circles. We have those who will argue to the End about the ultimate supremacy of one single version, one set or sources, or a defense of one version via an attack on every other. This bridge has been crossed, burned, rebuilt, crossed, burned and rebuilt again...and again.

I am open to the possibility of one day maintaining an assumption as to the ultimate superiority of one set of sources and/or translation methods over the other. However, that day has not come. I have researched it. Yet I have not seen anything concrete enough to render one version or set of sources ultimately superior to another -- especially enough to write long attacks on anything other than a position to which I arrived. Yet, I suppose, the debate will continue as long as people are secure enough with reaching such conclusions and basing much time in their well-meaning attacks and defenses.

Until the day arrives in which I can view one version, set of sources and/or translation methods as undeniably superior, I will continue to view the TR, KJV and NIV with an equal amount of academic, scholarly and most importantly, prayful scrutiny.

Thanks for the long post. I will read it. I was wondering if you wrote all of it? Otherwise, is there a citation anywhere from which I can verify the source(s)?


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/29 3:25Profile









 Re:

To ccchhhrrriiisss:

[b]The “fruit” of the newer Bible versions, what is it? Today more Protestant men and women are joining the Catholic Church. How could this be? The majority of the Protestant men and women over the past 60 years have all relied on the newer Bible versions- the ASB, NIV, etc. etc. etc. These versions rely on the same corrupt text that was used by the Gnostics to create their Bible, which is the Bible of the Catholic Church. Today’s Protestant does not know and understand Sound Doctrine because he is reading the work of the first textural critics, the Gnostics who cut and pasted God’s Word to conform with their own beliefs. I have posted various Bible comparisons of the newer versions, AND compared them to the Protestant Bible of the Reformation. The post was locked, but was called NASB OR THE NKJV and is found in the Scripture & Doctrine section, page 4 (presently).If you look at all of the comparisons you will see the problem. All of the newer versions water down God’s Word, water down God’s Doctrine. So, today, when the “Protestant” Christian is reading his “Newer Version”, he or she is actually reading the Catholic Bible, that waters down doctrine. Todays Christian has no understanding of Doctrine, and hence finds nothing WRONG with Catholocism.

Also today we have un-presented numbers of “Protestant Christians”, who have relied on the newer versions, that have “itching ears” and have no interest in sound doctrine. They are the name it and claim it group, the blab and grab it bunch. They are also the “Christians” that fill the purpose driven churches, and accept a social gospel, rather than the shed blood of Jesus Christ to wash away their sins and to redeem fallen man back to Himself. The reason? The Bibles they are studying are absent of sound doctrine.

Just one example of this absence of sound doctrine in the newer versions. The NAS or the NIV are guilty of the following:
The alterations & discrepancies are radical changes in Gods Word that attack:
1) Jesus Christ a being God 2) That Christs blood forgives sin. 3)That Mary was a virgin 4) That Christ is prophesized as offering salvation (Zech 9:9). Col 1:14=blood; 1 Tim 3:16=God replaced by he; Isaiah 7:14=virgin replaced by young woman; Zechariah 9:9= salvation is removed; Matthew 1:25=firstborn is removed; Matthew 4:10=worshipped Him (referring to worship of Jesus Christ) replace by bowing down, and sometimes omitted!

2 Timothy 4: 1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

This is the fruit of the newer versions: 1) An exodus of the Protestant body of Christ into Catholocism 2) An exodus of the body of Christ into cults or anything else, other than a Conservative Bible Believing Protestant Church that relies on the King James Bible version--the Bible version that convicts humanity of their sin and the need of a Savior.

General William Booth forsaw this day, when he said:

“In answer to your inquiry, I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.”


Who was General William Booth? Does he sound like anyone around today?

William Booth was born near Nottingham on April 10, 1829. As a youth, he was apprenticed to a pawnbroker, but after a conversion experience he began street preaching for a Methodist chapel. In 1849 he went to London, where he worked as a pawnbroker. Three years later, however, he became a full-time Methodist lay preacher. In 1855 he married Catherine Mumford, an intelligent and determined woman. Encouraged by her in his theological studies, Booth was ordained a minister in 1858
Booth's theology was simple and unchanging. He drew both his beliefs and his basic practice from the model set by John Wesley a century earlier. His creed required no systematic theological learning. He held that without personal acceptance of Christ as his Savior, the sinful man would die into eternal damnation. Although the opportunity for acceptance was freely offered to all, it was certain to be ignored by the masses in the sordid and pagan slums of the new industrial towns. Thus it was necessary to reach the ignorant, the drunkard, and the criminal and offer them the chance of repentance.

Driven by this purpose, in 1861 the Booths left Methodism and in 1865 established the Christian Mission in East London. During the next 12 years Booth developed the evangelical techniques later employed in the Salvation Army. Among these were the use of secular quarters and the enlistment of converted sinners as workers. Booth was not a political or social radical; he only gradually came to accept that social uplift might have to precede conversion. Thus he slowly built a social program of food kitchens, housing, and communal organization.[/b][b][color=CC0000] He wrote, however, "The Social is the bait, but it is Salvation that is the hook that lands the fish.

The conversion of the Christian Mission into the Salvation Army occurred somewhat accidentally in 1878. Booth had earlier expressed his evangelical zeal in military terms, titles, and concepts. This organizational style, not unique to his army, was in tune with the current popularity of militarism and imperialism. The army's paper, the War Cry, appeared at the end of 1879. Although the army met considerable hostility through the 1880s, by 1890 Booth had become a figure of international renown. The day-today administrative labor of the Salvation Army fell increasingly to Bramwell Booth, General Booth's oldest child and his chief of staff and successor.

Mrs. Booth died in 1890, the year in which Booth wrote, with much assistance from the reforming journalist W. T. Stead, his famous book, In Darkest England and the Way Out. In it Booth colorfully and compassionately detailed the misery of the "Submerged Tenth" and insisted that the "way out" must transform men as well as their surroundings.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/10/29 11:33
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4587


 Re:

Hi Brother Waltern...

It would be far more accurate and honest to say that this is your [u]opinion[/u], rather than calling the text "[u]corrupt[/u]."

You make quite a few complex arguments that don't seem to hold any weight in a discussion regarding whether the KJV is the sole "perfect and preserved" Word of God. No offense, brother, but your argument simply does not hold the weight of academic scrutiny. For instance, we have covered these lies in the past:

Quote:
Just one example of this absence of sound doctrine in the newer versions. The NAS or the NIV are guilty of the following:
The alterations & discrepancies are radical changes in Gods Word that attack:
1) Jesus Christ a being God 2) That Christs blood forgives sin. 3)That Mary was a virgin 4) That Christ is prophesized as offering salvation (Zech 9:9). Col 1:14=blood; 1 Tim 3:16=God replaced by he; Isaiah 7:14=virgin replaced by young woman; Zechariah 9:9= salvation is removed; Matthew 1:25=firstborn is removed; Matthew 4:10=worshipped Him (referring to worship of Jesus Christ) replace by bowing down, and sometimes omitted!

I could take you through the NIV and show you verses that contain such doctrines. But you know what? You probably wouldn't listen anyway. You are so content in your disgust for a version of the Word of God (or, at least, what many view as the Word of God) that you will just move on to other grounds to spew your contempt.

I have enjoyed brother Ron Bailey's perspective in regards to the sources, methods and end product of the Word. Your argument, however, reeks of mere contempt rather than a legitimate search for truth in the matter. Ultimately, I find that it is difficult to reason with someone who just seems to know it all. So why should I try?

Brother, I love you in the Lord. Truly. I just don't like to go around this topic over and over (...and over...) again. Nothing that I say seems to move you, and you usually do not comment on the things that I write anyway. You just keep posting long posts with what I see to be faulty reasoning. Even in this last post, it seems like you are blaming the entire state of the Church on the acceptance of versions other than the KJV (as if those people who embrace the KJV are the only "right" believers). I know quite a few faithful readers of the KJV who wouldn't know God if He stood in front of them with open arms (like the Mormons). Do you see how your arguments are not clear? Do you understand that you stray off on tangents that don't clarify the basis for your argument?

Brother, keep on reading the KJV! I think that it is a faithful translation from the set of sources that it used -- even if I am aware that it was completed with the efforts of mere men. I am aware of the preconditions, limits or mistakes that are contained within its pages. I feel the same way about the NIV too. But I feel the liberty to read the NIV -- even if you hate it so much as to spread your contempt for it. Your arguments (and even the more clear perspectives of others) just haven't caused me to dismiss the NIV as anything less than holding the same respect of it as I do the KJV. I just view them both for what they are: Faithful translations from an entirely different set of sources.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/29 14:51Profile
bible1985
Member



Joined: 2008/8/13
Posts: 354


 Re:

i am going to have to agree with Chris on this. O.k i read most of the book by d.a waite called defending the king james bible, the part i didn't read was basically him showing the verses that were omitted or changed. I also read james whites book called the king james controversy. Even though White does not defend his own belief that much on the other versions he puts up the straw man arguments by kjv only people very good. Kjv believers will say they didn't put son of God, or didn't say Jesus Christ just Jesus or they omitted this and that. One thing is this is your putting the kjv as the standard that is why your saying their is omittions in the first place. James white had to bring dozen of examples where the niv or nasb for an example when the niv would say something about the deity that the kjv would separate God and saviour almost as 2 different people while the other versions actually kept them as the same and one. Also their differences in the manuscripts from beza, stephanus, eramus, etc. and the other texts used to bring this together. Eramus had to even take the book of revelation from another manuscript to put it in, so not all the books were always in the majority text. I really don't know the side of the older manuscripts aleph and b and so i am not saying they our better by no means. I don't agree that the older is the better, because if the byzantine texts were correctly transmitted from the beginning until now then their is no problem in saying that they our better than the alexandrian texts. I actually believe personally that the older manuscripts our not as reliable just for the fact of the differences in the first 2 earlist ones. I use the kjv, but i think james brought up some good points in his book. My friends almost look at others who use these other versions as non christians or heretics because of people like peter ruckman and gail riplinger and that offends me knowing so many holy christians who don't use it. The question should be is if you have Jesus or not, all bibles give us that opportunity to know him. I am not taking away anything away from the kjv but some of their arguments our hateful and rude and many lies about other versions, i recommend james whites book to all, but i still want to say that the holy spirit will let you know if it is not good. The lord let me know when i was reading the new living translation i believe that his spirit was not on this book as most. I feel his spirit in the kjv, niv, and nasb.

 2008/10/29 17:10Profile
paulamicela
Member



Joined: 2008/6/12
Posts: 40


 Re:

ccchhhrrriiisss,

I think your last post was very good and I agree wholeheartedly that this debate is getting nowhere. I think it would be a very good time to end this thread!

-Paul


_________________
Paul W. Lamicela

 2008/10/29 17:32Profile









 Re: Which Version

TO CCCHHHRRRIIISSS:

I will address your statements, one by one:
Your first statement:
1. I could take you through the NIV and show you verses that contain such doctrines. But you know what? You probably wouldn't listen anyway. You are so content in your disgust for a version of the Word of God (or, at least, what many view as the Word of God) that you will just move on to other grounds to spew your contempt.

My Response:
[b]I have provided documentation that proves, through the lens of history, that the Protestant Church of the Reformation of 1881 rejected the work of the revision committee of January, 1881, and called it a copy (plagiarism) of the liberal 1808 Belsham Unitarian Bible.

The Protestant Church of the Reformation REJECTED all of the changes in Bible Doctrine that occurred in the 1881 Revision.

Since you not only defend the 1881 “Revision”,as well as all of the newer "versions" that have spawned from it since 1881

Since you also defend the doctrinal changes that have been found in all of the Vaticanius and Sinaiticus texts, and place it of equal merit to the Textus Receptus, you ccchhhrrriiisss are in direct opposition to the Protestant Church of the Reformation of 1881. Their findings, as posted below online, prove that the "Revision" was nothing more than a copy of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian Bible- a word for word copy, and was therefore a "replacement" of the Textus Receptus with an entirely different text—"the corrupt "Vaticanius and Sinaiticus" that was created by the gnostics and then used by the Roman Catholic Church to create their Catholic Bible.


It is no longer a matter of “he said, she said”, “yes it is, no it isn’t”---the revision, that you support was rejected by the Protestant body of Christ 1881:

I have actually posted this at least 3 times directly to you, but you never respond.
I will try one more time:[/b]
Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor[/url]



What was their response in 1881? Similar to the response by conservative Christians today. The conservative Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the "1881 revision" (it was not a "revision", it was a replacement!). They rejected it as being a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham’s Unitarian Testament. It was rejected until the early 1900's, and still had very little support from the Protestant body. Today, people actually prefer the newer versions than they do the Authorized Protestant Bible.

The story line in the Feb. 8, 1881 New York Times starts as follows: "Certain striking coincidences discovered- a comparison with the Unitarian Version Published in London in 1808"
Thoughout this article they note all of the Scripture (Doctrine) that has been changed or eliminated in this 1881 Revision in comparison to the Protestant Bible- the King James (just like many Conservative Christians do today). They actually compared the changes in the 1881 revision to be identical on a verse by verse basis with the liberal 1808 Belsham's Unitarian New Testament, concluding as follows:

"These striking coincidences of sense, and even of phraseololy, as well as the omissions and changes made in the text, would seem to indicate that the revisers must have had constantly in their view the Unitarian version of 1808, if they did not, indeed, make it the basis of their revision. It would hardly seem as if such coincidences could have been accidental. If the rest of the revised New Testament corresponds closely with the Unitarian version of 1808 as the examples given in the THE TIMES of Jan. 1881, the work will be a remarkable tribute to learning and skill of Mr. Belsham and his coadintors whose version was gotten up three-quarters of a century ago."

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) can be found here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html


The 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament “included a valuable introduction on the progress and principles of textural criticism, anticipating many judgments later adopted in the Revised Version of 1881”; but drew the fire of the Orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine (to Protestant Believers).

What none of the Protestant critics knew in 1881, when they published their discovery that the 1881 Revised Version by Westcott and Hort was a plagiarism of the 1808 Belsham Unitarian New Testament, was that Belsham, as well as Westcott & Hort had REPLACED the Authorized version of the New Testament with the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used to create the Catholic Bible. Even today, I don’t think people are aware of what really happened---the SUBSTITUTION of the very Word of God, passed down by the Church with the corrupt text CREATED by Justin Martyr, Taitan, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebiusas & Jerome to conform to their belief of Gnostocism!

[b][color=990000]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In Conclusion, Ccchhhrrriiisss, I have no choice but to REJECT your position as flawed on this matter, the same as the Protestant Church of the Reformation REJECTED IT in 1881. They REJECTED the "Revision Committee" and the work of Westcott & Hort, and therefore so do I! Since you support Westcott & Hort and their "revision" in regards to the changes in Doctrine found in the "revision" and all "newer versions", I also have to reject your postion on this matter as well.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Source material, other than the "history" link to the 1881 New York times that proves the Protestant Church of 1881 REJECTED the Work of Westcott & Hort:

“The Revision Revised- A Refutation of Westcott and Hort’s False Greek Text and Theory- A Defense of the Authorized Version" by Dean John William Burgon. 1st Printing 1883, 2nd Printing 2000, 549 pages plus 26 page Appendix

“Which Version is the Bible” by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, 1998 Edition (16th Edition) 173 pages.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

[b][color=0000CC]Krispy posted this earlier, and I will close with that again here:
To answer your question, here is a quote from David Cloud concerning this issue:

John Burgon’s research into the text of the scripture through church history has, in some ways, never been equaled. This is particularly true of his research into the quotations from the scriptures of the church leaders of antiquity.

To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D. By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the TRADITIONAL, OR BY WHATEVER NAME YOU PLEASE---THE FACT REMAINS THAT A TEXT HAS COME DOWN TO US WHICH IS ATTESTED BY A GENERAL CONSENSUS OF ANCIENT COPIES, ANCIENT FATHERS, AND ANCIENT VERSIONS"(Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

This testimony of Burgon is not to be taken lightly. He knew as much about the Bible of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries as any man who has lived in the last 200 years. When he says that the Received Text is attested by Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible versions, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the writings of church “fathers” support the Received Text. This was a fact known by the Reformation editors. Whereas the textual critics of our day see this as a mere accident of history, the Bible-believing Reformation editors of old saw the hand of God in it. So do we!
[/color][/b]

 2008/10/30 1:14
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4587


 Re:

Hi walter...

Please refer to my previous post. Thanks! The Lord bless you and keep you -- and may His face shine upon you and give you peace.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/30 2:54Profile









 Re: Which Version

[b]Ccchhhrrriiisss posted previously:[/b]

2. I have enjoyed brother Ron Bailey's perspective in regards to the sources, methods and end product of the Word. Your argument, however, reeks of mere contempt rather than a legitimate search for truth in the matter. Ultimately, I find that it is difficult to reason with someone who just seems to know it all. So why should I try?

[b]My Response:

Why wouldn’t you enjoy Ron Baileys response? He is in lock step with your own position, and in total agreement with you. Both of you are in total disagreement with the Protestant Church of the reformation of 1881. Ron supports the new versions, the same as you do. In fact, as I look back at the prior battles about “Which Versions” on Sermonindex, he is right there along side of you, almost everytime, agreeing with you and you agreeing with him, and both of you disagreeing that the Textus Receptus is the Preserved Word of God, and placing the inferior Codex Vaticanius and Sinaiticus equal to the preserved text, the Textus Receptus[/b]

[b][color=0033FF]You are absolutely correct, my posts reek of contempt for both of your positions on this matter, because both of your positions are the same and are in opposition to the Protestant Church of the Reformation of 1881!

God has promised to preserve His Word. He has not told us that we would need “textural critics” to read corrupted manuscripts, and then use their own human intellect to cut and paste newer “versions” of His Word.[/color][/b]

[b]WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES?

God has pomised us to both give and protect His Word. These are just a small example of God’s promise to us:
"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." (Jeremiah 1:12)

Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it – to make all that He has said come to pass.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)
God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth.

Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

Why this verse if God has not preserved His Word?

"But the word of the Lord endureth forever." (I Pet.1:25)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word – forever.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

".. for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name! That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews that they did not even pronounce it.

Jesus said "... and the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35)

Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God – that God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures. But there is more!
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever." (Psa.12:6, 7)

This is a promise from God! ccchhhrrriiisss, do you believe it? He says He will preserve it. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error – He promised to preserve the text forever!

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along the way? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they are no longer trustworthy – to hold us accountable when our guide is not 100 percent reliable?

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. We are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring – even to the smallest detail – and He was not referring to the originals, but to COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES.

"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)

Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have the originals. They had COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES of the ORIGINALS yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God.

"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40)

The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ – and then to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they have been changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer have the Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.[/b]

[b][color=990000]I have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine. Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". Therefore, for God to accomplish this stated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain accessible to the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!

Ccchhhrrriiisss, God has promised us that He would PRESERVE HIS WORD, while you and Ron believe that God needs fallen mankind to RESTORE his Word from the corrupt Codex Vaticanius and Sinaiticus, that was CREATED by the first "Textural Critics", the Gnostics!.

I reject your position as well as Rons position on this issue, just as the Protestant Church of the Reformation of 1881 rejected the work of Westcott & Hort and the Revision committee as a fraud. The men of the Revision Committee created the "first" newer version in 1881 that is used by all Bible scholars today as the basis for creating newer versions.

God is all powerful and can do anything, the very least of which is the preservation of His Word.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,


Walter

P.S.
Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor[/url]



 2008/10/30 23:22
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4587


 Re:

*Sigh

Brother Waltern…

No offense, but you sound like a broken record. That wouldn’t be such a problem if it was that you were preaching the Gospel to the lost. Rather, you are preaching your view that the Textus Receptus and/or the KJV are/is the “perfect and preserved” Word of God.

Brother, I do believe that God can preserve His Word. I simply don’t think that the KJV is it. It contains MISTAKES, brother. Some of those mistakes are actually in the sources from which it was taken. I’ve pointed to some of these errors in the past.

So how does God preserve His Word? The Word of God says that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but the Word of God will stand forever. You cannot destroy the Word of God – yet the many manuscripts originally written by Moses, David, Paul, Peter, John, Isaiah, etc… have vanished. Yet the Word remains. If every manuscript were destroyed – the Word of God would still be preserved. Why? Because the Word of God is not confined to the translation efforts of publications of flawed men.

When I was a child, I remember reading a story in my classroom textbook about the “Hanoi Hilton” (the same place that Senator John McCain was confined and tortured for over 5 years). The story was about how the captive POWs were tortured, beaten and treated inhumanely during their confinement. They were mostly isolated during that time. Yet they found ways to communicate. They would knock on the metal walls via Morse Code. They eventually transcribed as much of the Word of God that they could coming solely from the memories of the POWs. They hid it from their guards. After the war, one of the soldiers carried it with him. While some of the grammar and phrases were off, they were surprised to learn that they had a large portion of the New Testament written – all from memory. This “Word of God” was not contained in the leather or paper bindings of a book. Rather, it was written on the tablets of the minds and hearts of those soldiers, sustaining them for years.

God’s Word cannot pass away. Why? Because Jesus IS the Word of God! His Word is not confined to the translation efforts and “best guesses” and “suppositions” of educated and scholarly translators. Guess what? Jesus didn’t even speak English (let alone 17th Century English). Yet we are blessed to have 66 books translated into our language from various sources. Sure, some of those sources do not agree with one another in every passage. Yet we are blessed to have these handed down through the ages! Persecution, burning, and tribulation did not stop them. Even a corrupt Roman Church that produced a text that was required in the majority of the world could not stop the truth.

Brother Walter, I am tired of going around this desert mountain. I would just encourage you to keep reading the Word. I would also encourage you to pray before you spread slander or libel about versions that don’t suit your beliefs (lest you find yourself spreading slander or libel against the Word Himself). It almost seems like you are on a crusade – armed with knowledge that has been passed to you second handedly by well-meaning men with very strong convictions. Have you really researched this on your own? Have you consulted those translators of what you consider “corrupt” versions in order to ascertain just WHY they did what they did? Have you dug up ancient documents to support your conclusions? Have you visited archives to read the writings of Erasmus? Yet you seem so convinced that you cannot be wrong in ANYTHING that you write! Do you truly think that your mission is to save the souls that you don’t think could possibly be saved after reading a version like the NIV?

Brother, we need to move on. You are certainly entitled to your opinion – no matter how flawed I feel it may be. Yet, ironically, I haven’t arrived to an ultimate conclusion about the matter. I don’t know the certainty as to which text sources are, without exception, perfect. I haven’t heard an argument strong enough that would cause me to doubt the validity of the sources or methods used for versions like the NIV. Yet you have. Strangely, we have read and heard many of the same arguments, and yet I am still not convinced! Perhaps I just feel that I should not arrive to such a concrete conclusion – especially to publicly proclaim it and deride all others – unless the evidence is without a sliver of doubt.

Like I have said, I prefer to read the KJV as a good and old scholarly translation taken from a particular set of sources and the NIV as a good and newer scholarly translation taken from a different set of sources. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think otherwise, yet I have studied this with great honesty and effort. I’ve even read your posts, and cannot cast my lot with your perception (or the conclusion of those from whom you have drawn your argument and criticisms). However, if I ever find some evidence that is so concrete – so indisputable – that would cause me to embrace such a notion with finality, I will let you know. Until then, I just feel uncomfortable with your insistence regarding any sort of final judgment on something that cannot be made on this side of having all of the facts (unless, of course, you have some sort of ancient manuscripts by which to compare Erasmus’ translation efforts with).

Brother, let’s just move on and agree that it isn’t wise to proclaim a final verdict with such a limited amount of evidence. It would be a tragedy to find that we were actually bearing false witness against an admirable version of the Word of God.

*P.S. - If I were you, I would speak with Brother Ron Bailey before you go about saying what he thinks in this matter. You might want to read his words all over again. I have a feeling that you misinterpreted or misunderstood what he has written.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/31 0:23Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy