tulsa 2011
Member
i could not see a delete button to get rid of the two duplications of my last post. The problem is that the system does not appear to post something and one tries again to post it, but all the time it was posting it.
Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Word
- Thread starter tulsa 2011
- Start date
lawrenceb
Member
tulsa2011, you can simply modify your post(s) by deleting the repetitious material and then adding the words, "duplicate post deleted."
Everything, and I mean everything, you posted on topic is indeed researchable fact. There aren't many who are willing to go the distance on this issue, preferring instead to trust other men who do not have their best interests at heart. No one wants to believe they could be this deceived.
Let's not allow the topic degrade into a "he said, she said" free-for-all. If someone has questions about any of the info posted, let him ask, and more primary source documentation may follow.
All glory to the King of kings!
Everything, and I mean everything, you posted on topic is indeed researchable fact. There aren't many who are willing to go the distance on this issue, preferring instead to trust other men who do not have their best interests at heart. No one wants to believe they could be this deceived.
Let's not allow the topic degrade into a "he said, she said" free-for-all. If someone has questions about any of the info posted, let him ask, and more primary source documentation may follow.
All glory to the King of kings!
Well, there was no copyright law back in the 1500's that's why. If you read about copyrighting, it did not begin until the 1900's.
Well said sister. I agree with you. Anyone who claims a "copyrighted" translation of the Bible is heresy or not the Word of GOD is delusional to say the least. That's a lie of the devil to scare people away from trusting the bible, today's translations and keep them from hearing GOD's Word, receiving Jesus as Savior and being eternally in Heaven with Him.
Anyone who thinks KJV is better than any other translation certainly cannot be serious, or possibly idolizing the translation over the Word of GOD itself. God is fully capable of maintaining the power of His Word and message in any modern translation, and so He does.
I read NIV, NLT, ESV, KJV, NKJV, The Message, AMP, etc. I'm ok with all. I'm ok with the copyrights too.
If you have a better solution than copyrighting the modern translations, go ahead and open a thread on this.
lawrenceb
Member
I have in my hand </SPAN></SPAN>The Holy Bible</SPAN>, the actual title of the King James Bible. Neither on its indicia page, nor elsewhere, is the word “copyright” found. It is in the public domain.</SPAN></SPAN>
Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the </SPAN>men</SPAN> who claim to </SPAN>own</SPAN> these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.</SPAN>
There are fundamental differences between a “copyright” and the Crown's “letters patent." </SPAN></SPAN>
Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.</SPAN>
LETTERS PATENT</SPAN>. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. </SPAN></SPAN>Bouvier's Dictionary of Law</SPAN></SPAN>, 1856.</SPAN>
A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.</SPAN>
There is a conspiracy</SPAN> of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things...Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane...Her princes in the midst thereof are like...to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain</SPAN>. And her prophets...seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken....Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel chapter 22)
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Mat 6:21; Luke 12:34)
At the root of all the rhetoric about the need for new versions lies the true cause -- covetousness. “The love of money is</SPAN> the root of all evil.” Some “destroy souls to get dishonest gain.” Are there ministries which promote the new versions because they, in turn, pack their treasuries?
The word of God is not bound. (II Timothy 2:9).
The KJV is the only version not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. However, “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33) or of “commercial ventures.” The latter term was used to describe the ASV (NASB, Living Bible</SPAN>), RV (RSV) and ‘New’ Greek Text by Philip Schaff, the chairman of the American Committee. His autobiography exposes the sordid details of “intense fighting” and “battles” over the profits to ensue. God did not author these versions, as Schaff’s book reveals. He admits the translation moved to “publisher’s control mid-stream”; each verse was “subject to approval of the University presses” who had “assumed all the expenses of the enterprise...$100,000.”
He states further:
“[P]roperty and commercial rights were the bone of contention...I fought with the New Testament Company for three hours for the American rights...The syndics of the University presses...agreed to ratify them on the condition that the American Committee purchase the copyright of the revision for...5000 pounds [several million American dollars today]...In return for the 5000 pounds the American Committee would then at all events obtain complete command of the American market [$$$]...The battle over commercial rights was so great that the University presses had prohibited the British companies from sending any more material to the U.S....After intense fighting, it was agreed that the American Committee could not release their version for 14 years.” (The Life of Schaff</SPAN>, pp. 366-377).
The autobiography of J. B. Philips [NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament</SPAN> Forward, J. B. Philips Translation</SPAN>] likewise lays bare his beliefs (about his billfold). He not only expects to receive royalties from the sale of these versions but those who use “extended quotes...must expect to pay a proper copyright fee.” (See Ring of Truth</SPAN> and Price of Success</SPAN>, p. 163). Dr. Frank Logsdon, a force behind the NASB, says of his partner, Dewey Lockman, “[H]e did it for the money.” Is it any wonder new version editors twist verses which warn of seeking wealth? (See I Cor. 10:24 and I Tim. 6:10).
</SPAN>
God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before</SPAN> copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent</SPAN> is never enforced</SPAN> to curtail its spread in Great Britain.</SPAN>
If I were to distill this down to its essence, I would state as follows:
Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions, is not bound.</SPAN></SPAN>
Conversely, modern translations are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the </SPAN>men</SPAN> who claim to </SPAN>own</SPAN> these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.</SPAN>
There are fundamental differences between a “copyright” and the Crown's “letters patent." </SPAN></SPAN>
Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.</SPAN>
LETTERS PATENT</SPAN>. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. </SPAN></SPAN>Bouvier's Dictionary of Law</SPAN></SPAN>, 1856.</SPAN>
A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.</SPAN>
There is a conspiracy</SPAN> of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things...Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane...Her princes in the midst thereof are like...to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain</SPAN>. And her prophets...seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken....Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel chapter 22)
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Mat 6:21; Luke 12:34)
At the root of all the rhetoric about the need for new versions lies the true cause -- covetousness. “The love of money is</SPAN> the root of all evil.” Some “destroy souls to get dishonest gain.” Are there ministries which promote the new versions because they, in turn, pack their treasuries?
The word of God is not bound. (II Timothy 2:9).
The KJV is the only version not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. However, “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33) or of “commercial ventures.” The latter term was used to describe the ASV (NASB, Living Bible</SPAN>), RV (RSV) and ‘New’ Greek Text by Philip Schaff, the chairman of the American Committee. His autobiography exposes the sordid details of “intense fighting” and “battles” over the profits to ensue. God did not author these versions, as Schaff’s book reveals. He admits the translation moved to “publisher’s control mid-stream”; each verse was “subject to approval of the University presses” who had “assumed all the expenses of the enterprise...$100,000.”
He states further:
“[P]roperty and commercial rights were the bone of contention...I fought with the New Testament Company for three hours for the American rights...The syndics of the University presses...agreed to ratify them on the condition that the American Committee purchase the copyright of the revision for...5000 pounds [several million American dollars today]...In return for the 5000 pounds the American Committee would then at all events obtain complete command of the American market [$$$]...The battle over commercial rights was so great that the University presses had prohibited the British companies from sending any more material to the U.S....After intense fighting, it was agreed that the American Committee could not release their version for 14 years.” (The Life of Schaff</SPAN>, pp. 366-377).
The autobiography of J. B. Philips [NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament</SPAN> Forward, J. B. Philips Translation</SPAN>] likewise lays bare his beliefs (about his billfold). He not only expects to receive royalties from the sale of these versions but those who use “extended quotes...must expect to pay a proper copyright fee.” (See Ring of Truth</SPAN> and Price of Success</SPAN>, p. 163). Dr. Frank Logsdon, a force behind the NASB, says of his partner, Dewey Lockman, “[H]e did it for the money.” Is it any wonder new version editors twist verses which warn of seeking wealth? (See I Cor. 10:24 and I Tim. 6:10).
</SPAN>
God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before</SPAN> copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent</SPAN> is never enforced</SPAN> to curtail its spread in Great Britain.</SPAN>
If I were to distill this down to its essence, I would state as follows:
Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions, is not bound.</SPAN></SPAN>
So, just because you say so all publishers / translators of modern copyrighted translations are greedy? That's a steep statement to make about people you do not know. How do you know they love money? How do you know they aren't giving back in tithes and offerings, gifts? How do you know GOD never called them to do what they do? Why? Just because it's copyrighted?
Do you have proof this was GOD's intention?
Are the modern copyrighted translations not ordained by GOD? Are they not still the Word of GOD? I'd like to know your thoughts on this. But, I know they are anyway.
Based on your responses, it appears your a KJVO advocate. Your entitled to your thoughts, however be careful not to cause others to stumble. You've already passed judgment on every modern day translator and publisher and everyone in between involved with these translations. That's not right. Do you think anyone who reads anything but the KJV is not receiving the full true Word, the full Gospel?
Here's an excellent article from John Piper's Desiring God
***
Is it wrong to copyright and sell the Bible?
The Word of God is not synonymous with paper and ink. It doesn't cost anything. Paper and ink do.
God wants Christians to say, "Freely I have received, freely I give," and, therefore, to share the gospel without price. However, if we really believe that the Bible (as a paper-and-ink book) is good to have, it has to be paid for.
The issue really comes down to the question of profit.
I would be very hesitant to try to turn the Bible into profiteering.
In order to get the Bible out, however, I would not hesitate as a publisher to say, "We have to cover our costs somehow." Part of it can be raising money, but part of it would be selling. We would sell not for the sake of building big profit for shareholders, but for the sake of investing in ministry for more and more Bible distribution. That's why I like certain Bible publishers that are essentially non-profit ministries. Yes, they charge for their Bibles, but they're not eager to get rich employees.
So I think that selling the Bible at a reasonable cost in order to fund the translation and printing is not an evil. The people who want to share the Bible should labor to give it away as much as they can, to give Bibles away that they buy.
The question might be, "How many Bibles have you given away recently that you paid for?" Because somebody has to pay for them, and maybe that should be you.
As regards the copyright question, that's really important to think about. I would say "Amen" to copyrighting a version of the Bible if that copyright is used to protect the version from distortion rather than to make anybody rich. Getting rich is not the point.
A Bible version, like the English Standard Version, ought to be copyrighted not because you're going to keep paying translators or a committee. That's not the point. The point is that unbelievable care, prayer, and energy goes into a translation's accuracy, and you don't want anybody taking it, saying it's the ESV, and then changing the words to wrong translations.
The safeguard we have in our culture to prevent such distortion is to copyright things. If you want to produce another translation of the Bible you have to call it something else. You can't call it the ESV, NIV, RSV, or NASB. You have to call it your own thing, so people know that you're taking responsibility. Because these folks are putting their lives on the line to say that this is a faithful translation.
So as a right to protect wording, copyrighting seems good. As a right to maximize wealth, that would be a terrible motivation for doing it.
tulsa 2011
Member
The differences between the Textus Receptus and the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text is the larger issue. And this is an interesting issue if it can be made to rise above opinion and feeling-relationships. Many Christians don't even fully realize there are two main Greek texts, and that almost all the recent English translations for the New Testament are out of the Westcott-Hort.
There are some oneline recources that can be used to compare verse wordings of the two Greek texts verse by verse.
One is Unbound Bible. I can't put links in here because of restrictions of this forum. But you can Google
unboundbible.
The Unbound Bible site will give you verse wordings for the King James, New American Standard, New Revised Standard, American Standard, and Young's Literal Version.
Then, go down to Greek NT, to Textus Receptus (1559/1894) and to Westcott-Hort UBS4, Variants.
You can Google New International Version Online, New King James Version, Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible. Bible Gateway has the NIV, 1599 Geneva Bible and some others. The Wesley Center has the Tyndale Bible of about 1526 online. Like the King James, the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles are from the Textus Receptus for the NT.
To avoid a very long post, I am going to include only a brief summary for several verses on the topic of the diety of Jesus Christ - in the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort.
Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou
Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou
Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of
"Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV
are in line with gnostic teachings.
John 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs
uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o
wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
The Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten
Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten
God. On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of
Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..."
Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being
a Son of God.
The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts.
Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son."
The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is
consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ
was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics,
especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created
being and not fully God..
John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw
kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou
John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai
eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou
The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of
the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of
man."
Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein
ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou
Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon
autou
The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton
christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh."
The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up
Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations
following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic
doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the
Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human
flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings.
Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the
Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil
Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old
Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy
from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period.
"According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the
Greek texts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Vaticanus.
There are some oneline recources that can be used to compare verse wordings of the two Greek texts verse by verse.
One is Unbound Bible. I can't put links in here because of restrictions of this forum. But you can Google
unboundbible.
The Unbound Bible site will give you verse wordings for the King James, New American Standard, New Revised Standard, American Standard, and Young's Literal Version.
Then, go down to Greek NT, to Textus Receptus (1559/1894) and to Westcott-Hort UBS4, Variants.
You can Google New International Version Online, New King James Version, Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible. Bible Gateway has the NIV, 1599 Geneva Bible and some others. The Wesley Center has the Tyndale Bible of about 1526 online. Like the King James, the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles are from the Textus Receptus for the NT.
To avoid a very long post, I am going to include only a brief summary for several verses on the topic of the diety of Jesus Christ - in the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort.
Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou
Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou
Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of
"Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV
are in line with gnostic teachings.
John 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs
uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o
wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato
The Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten
Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten
God. On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of
Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..."
Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being
a Son of God.
The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts.
Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son."
The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is
consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ
was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics,
especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created
being and not fully God..
John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw
kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou
John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai
eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou
The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of
the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of
man."
Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein
ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou
Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw
wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon
autou
The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton
christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh."
The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up
Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations
following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic
doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the
Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human
flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings.
Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the
Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil
Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old
Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy
from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period.
"According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the
Greek texts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Vaticanus.
lawrenceb
Member
</SPAN>
I don’t need to know them. Just look at their fruits.
</SPAN>
</SPAN>
They are merchants.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
It wouldn’t matter if they were “giving back,” because you cannot make clean that which is unclean. Actually, they believe that their “bad” deeds must be balanced by “good” deeds. It’s an occultic principle these “rich men of earth” follow, religiously.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
Again, the copyright is just another symptom of a much larger problem.</SPAN>
Merchants and thieves are spoken of interchangeably in scripture. But, the issue is much more sinister than that! Derivative copyright law states that minor changes do not qualify a derivative work for copyright. So they have to make MAJOR changes. And this is what they love to do, because they do not love God; merchants love money.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (Psalm 12:6-8 KJV).</SPAN></SPAN>
God has indeed inspired his word and preserved his word. The $64,000 question is: WHICH ONE is his word?</SPAN>
</SPAN>
They are not. Unsaved men are making filthy lucre out of the word of God. And they are counting on you NOT to perform due diligence. They are counting on you to accept the lie that theirs is “easier to read” and “easier to understand.” The marketers are laughing all the way to the bank, while God’s people remain ignorant and powerless. Even the most perverse modern translations contain some of the word of God somewhere, but they are not the inspired and preserved word he left for his people. God’s pattern has always been the same: he always gives the COMMON man the COMMON bible in the COMMON language of the day, for one purpose: to evangelize the world.</SPAN>
Last edited:
Sorry to tell you this, but this expresses your misconception.
You've claimed none of the modern translations are actual Word of GOD
You've presumed ALL people involved with these modern translations/copyrighted versions are greedy "merchants"
You've claimed people who read these translations are not receiving the Word of GOD.
You've said enough and too much. This is entirely wrong. That's not my opinion.
So you're stating (by the above) that every church congregation, members around the entire world are deceived and without the Word of GOD. How sick of an assumption and rather, intensely judgmental.
lawrenceb
Member
Scripture says that Satan is the most subtle beast of the field; he is a deceiver and deception marks the end times.
They contain some...
No, I said the merchants themselves are greedy, just as scripture tells us.
No, I said they're not receiving the complete Word of God e.g. 64,000 missing words and 17 complete verses.
I said, "Even the most perverse modern translations contain some of the word of God somewhere, but they are not the inspired and preserved word he left for his people."
And yes, many are deceived, preferring to trust their pastor rather than the word of God on the issue. We are warned to trust no man repeatedly throughout scripture.
I can post many verses from the KJB which are in direct opposition to what a modern version says. They cannot BOTH be correct, so someone is in error here...
No where in the bible (including "KJV") does it state that one version or translation of the Holy Bible is the official one.
You've repeated a few times about missing verses, well you should have posted them by now. Why haven't you?
And who are you to assume that the world is not receiving the full Gospel? Do you know their hearts? Their walk with GOD? Do you know the Holy Spirit is at work in their lives?
You do not so therefore you have no right to make all these assumptions. I suggest you find something to do with your time as a believer that is more valuable that belittling modern translations that GOD certainly Himself uses for His children. I'm one of them.
Your reasoning is truly flawed. You have yet to prove one valid point as far as I'm concerned.
More assumptions. So all who read modern translations fall into this category. The deceived. This is what your statement says.
This does not answer my questions, nor justify your reasoning nor prove anything about modern translations.
Strypes
Member
Currently my favorite Bible translation is the English Standard Version. It's official title is "The Holy Bible: English Standard Version"
I copied the following from its copyright page...
In the Preface, they state that the Tyndale KJV as a primary source along with others including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This is from the ESV website...
Please stop hating on my Bible. I love it and God speaks to me through it.
I copied the following from its copyright page...
In the Preface, they state that the Tyndale KJV as a primary source along with others including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This is from the ESV website...
Please stop hating on my Bible. I love it and God speaks to me through it.
Strypes
Member
The KJV does not include the Apocrypha. My GNV (Good News Version) does. There is a lot of Jewish History missing in the KJV like the history of the Maccabees and the origin of the Festival of Lights/Feast of Dedication aka Chanukah. So to belittle other translations would be a wee bit hypocritical being that the KJV is missing entire books.
Lawrenceb: I have a very serious question for you. Is there ANYTHING whatsoever that anyone could show you of solid truth that you would consider rethinking your position of the KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE? In a dialogue I thought it was a time for each person to present information and then to dialogue in a kind respectful way giving each side time to say their responce.
As I have read this thread over several times from the last time I posted I have some questions that I wonder about. Was it you intention to dialogue or just to repeat basicly the same contempt for all translations other than the KJV? I genuinely thought you were wanting share infornation with each other.
I have love for the KJV. As I have said I mainly use the New American Standard Bible. The NASB is a Bible that for some find it to flow much like Spanish is written, a little choppy. The English Standard Version is like the NASB a literal translation, but reads much smoother and easier to follow. I preached most of the time from the 1985 New International Version BIBLE. I have respect for those who translated the NIV all "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." I have the Expositor's Bible Commentary a 12 volume set that uses the NIV for the translation. My Seminary's Dean was Dr. Fred Young, who was on the Hebrew translators team. Dr. Young was a world known for his work on the works of the Dead Sea Scroll's. Every student was given a NIV Bible when they entered the Seminary.
The Revised Standard Version was used at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when I was there for one year. This is highly respected
bible. There many study Bibles that have taken some ministers like Dr. Charles Stanley who have taken years to add their notes and history to make an excellent study Bible. There are other study Bibles like the Life Application Bible Thats in several versions the KJV as well. There is a Bible with a metial cover for those in combat, policemen. There is even a water proof Bible! there is no reason for anyone not the read and understand the plan of salvation, and be able to understand what they are reading.
At present I have about eight different translations, that I use on a regular basis in my study. There is nothing wrong with having just one Bible, and perhaps that's what most christians have and use. But to have such devout adherence to only the KJV, and to state is is the only anointed consecrated Scripture in the English language is abominable.
I have done some searching on the KJV Only people and I wonder how many readers just assume what is said, like you posted here, is the truth. What reasearch do most people do after reading KJVO material. I ask you how much reaearch have you done yourself to make positive what you say is pure truth. There is so much material that you have presented without stating your source, gives the impression that what you have posted is orignal with you.
Just what if you are wrong? And I am very sure you are in error. If you someday come to the awareness that the information you took as pure truth, was not. How could you ever make up for theharm you may have done. Yes I have carefully done what I ask of you. I hope you think seriously about rechecking the facts you believe. Blessings; I agree to be respectful and kind as you are my brother in Christ.
Last edited:
lawrenceb
Member
I will take each of your comments, Chad, and reply. We must remain aware of a tactic of the enemy, and that is, Satan would like to keep us off-guard by constantly changing the focus of the discussion. Thus, if we succumb to that tactic, we are never able to come to a conclusion, never able to flesh out the truth of a matter before the focus shifts yet again. Let’s not go there. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of order; let everything be done in order, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.</SPAN></SPAN>
There can be only one truth. God’s word is the truth; by definition, then, all others which, for example, present any opposition to that truth, are counterfeits. The issue is: which one is God’s word? The reality becomes vivid when we see opposing meanings in the two bibles (i.e. in God’s Bible versus one or more of the modern versions).</SPAN></SPAN>
The Holy Ghost witnesses within our spirit as to which Bible is the “holy scriptures.” Jesus said, “...the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10-:4, 5). Our faith that God has given us his words is evidenced by:</SPAN></SPAN>
1. The Message:</SPAN></SPAN>
- The KJV most fully presents the central doctrines of our Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by faith; new versions often omit these and other central doctrines.</SPAN></SPAN>
- The KJV’s “separate from sinners” English vocabulary does not permit literal interpretations. For example, the KJV has ‘hell,’ instead of hades, ‘fornication,’ instead of ‘immorality,’ and ‘him,’ instead of the gender neutral ‘one.’</SPAN></SPAN>
2. The Manuscripts:</SPAN> The readings of the KJV have been those of the church at large perennially, as evidenced by:</SPAN></SPAN>
- Antiquity (before A.D. 450): Only the KJV matches Greek papyri, uncials, church ‘fathers’ and versions, such as the Latin and the Gothic. It also matches the oldest Hebrew Bibles.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Continuity: Only the KJV matches the four aforementioned witnesses, plus the Greek minuscules of the Middle Ages and all of the pure vernacular versions throughout history.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Variety: Only the KJV matches all types of witnesses, such as manuscripts, versions, and lectionaries from a wide variety of geographic locations.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Number: Only the KJV matches the overwhelming majority of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and vernacular translations.</SPAN></SPAN>
3. Method:</SPAN> Only the KJV is a contextually and linguistically precise, word-for-word translation of the pure text. New versions can use paraphrase and transliteration, while following corrupt Greek and/or Hebrew texts or vernacular editions.</SPAN></SPAN>
4. Memorization:</SPAN> The Psalmist proclaimed that he had hid God’s word in his heart that he might not sin against God (Ps. 119:11). The KJV is unparalleled for scripture memorization. Memorization is enhanced by the KJV’s alliteration, rhyme, rhythm and fewer syllables. Use of the KJV allows intergenerational teaching (Deut. 6:7; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).</SPAN></SPAN>
5. Minutiae:</SPAN> Because of the immense weight of the aforementioned 4 items and God’s promises in Psalm 12:6, & and Proverbs 30:5 to “preserve” a “pure” word “forever,” we must conclude that any minute questions regarding the KJV’s renderings must be attributed to the “dark glass” through which we see a holy and powerful God.</SPAN></SPAN>
I haven’t because I wasn’t asked to, until now. The NIV and most new versions omit Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24, just like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Catholic bible. In addition to these omissions, the NIV omits 64,000 vital words. All current English versions are corrupt except the King James Bible. There was only one ark, one tabernacle, and one altar; there is now one faith, one Lord, and one Bible for English readers, the KJV.</SPAN></SPAN>
If they are reading something other than the KJV, then they are not getting the complete words of God.</SPAN></SPAN>
This is irrelevant. There are many born again believers who read modern versions. There are many heathens who read the KJV.</SPAN></SPAN>
I have made no assumptions; don’t trust me. Rather, compare your NIV with your KJV. I’m not the one responsible for omitting those 17 verses and 64,000 words.</SPAN></SPAN>
No one has “belittled” anything. The facts are the facts, regardless of how one perceives the info. The enemy would love to divert us into the flesh over it and shift the focus away from the real issues.
Up until now, you haven’t asked for proof of anything. Now I’ve provided that item.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
Of course! If I am mucked up, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. I want to be admonished, reproved, and corrected in truth, because that is how wisdom is obtained. I was no different than the majority when the Lord put this bible version issue in my lap.
Indeed.
It would be nice. However, the majority is so ill-informed and conditioned on the issue that I often feel like I'm dialoguing with myself!
"Contempt"? That is an ad hominem attack, i.e. an attack on an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
No offence intended, but we don't select a "bible" based on our feelings. We select a bible based on God's truth.
You obviously believe all that you posted here are good things. I do not. We could pick out any one item and chat it up, such as the issue of the dead sea scrolls.
"devout adherence" and "abominable"? As I posted before, once you become aware of the facts of the matter, there is no other choice BUT the KJV. But this, of course, chaffs many people's hide.
I am not one such.
Sadly, the more normal scenario would have multitudes of provocateurs posting all sorts of falsehoods, with the others following them blindly. Very few are willing to take the heat that comes with a stand for the truth -- feelings be damned.
Again, do not judge me by those who have gone before me. If you have an issue you'd like to chat up, then by all means, present it here. We will not leave that issue until both "sides" are satisfied that the topic has been given full coverage. I have primary source documentation for any and all assertions.
Then please show me!
You and I can have a differing rendition of the facts (you see something from one side of the street, me from the other), but the truth is immutable.
What would that be?
Amen, brother.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
There can be only one truth. God’s word is the truth; by definition, then, all others which, for example, present any opposition to that truth, are counterfeits. The issue is: which one is God’s word? The reality becomes vivid when we see opposing meanings in the two bibles (i.e. in God’s Bible versus one or more of the modern versions).</SPAN></SPAN>
The Holy Ghost witnesses within our spirit as to which Bible is the “holy scriptures.” Jesus said, “...the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10-:4, 5). Our faith that God has given us his words is evidenced by:</SPAN></SPAN>
1. The Message:</SPAN></SPAN>
- The KJV most fully presents the central doctrines of our Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by faith; new versions often omit these and other central doctrines.</SPAN></SPAN>
- The KJV’s “separate from sinners” English vocabulary does not permit literal interpretations. For example, the KJV has ‘hell,’ instead of hades, ‘fornication,’ instead of ‘immorality,’ and ‘him,’ instead of the gender neutral ‘one.’</SPAN></SPAN>
2. The Manuscripts:</SPAN> The readings of the KJV have been those of the church at large perennially, as evidenced by:</SPAN></SPAN>
- Antiquity (before A.D. 450): Only the KJV matches Greek papyri, uncials, church ‘fathers’ and versions, such as the Latin and the Gothic. It also matches the oldest Hebrew Bibles.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Continuity: Only the KJV matches the four aforementioned witnesses, plus the Greek minuscules of the Middle Ages and all of the pure vernacular versions throughout history.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Variety: Only the KJV matches all types of witnesses, such as manuscripts, versions, and lectionaries from a wide variety of geographic locations.</SPAN></SPAN>
- Number: Only the KJV matches the overwhelming majority of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and vernacular translations.</SPAN></SPAN>
3. Method:</SPAN> Only the KJV is a contextually and linguistically precise, word-for-word translation of the pure text. New versions can use paraphrase and transliteration, while following corrupt Greek and/or Hebrew texts or vernacular editions.</SPAN></SPAN>
4. Memorization:</SPAN> The Psalmist proclaimed that he had hid God’s word in his heart that he might not sin against God (Ps. 119:11). The KJV is unparalleled for scripture memorization. Memorization is enhanced by the KJV’s alliteration, rhyme, rhythm and fewer syllables. Use of the KJV allows intergenerational teaching (Deut. 6:7; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15).</SPAN></SPAN>
5. Minutiae:</SPAN> Because of the immense weight of the aforementioned 4 items and God’s promises in Psalm 12:6, & and Proverbs 30:5 to “preserve” a “pure” word “forever,” we must conclude that any minute questions regarding the KJV’s renderings must be attributed to the “dark glass” through which we see a holy and powerful God.</SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
I haven’t because I wasn’t asked to, until now. The NIV and most new versions omit Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24, just like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Catholic bible. In addition to these omissions, the NIV omits 64,000 vital words. All current English versions are corrupt except the King James Bible. There was only one ark, one tabernacle, and one altar; there is now one faith, one Lord, and one Bible for English readers, the KJV.</SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
If they are reading something other than the KJV, then they are not getting the complete words of God.</SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
This is irrelevant. There are many born again believers who read modern versions. There are many heathens who read the KJV.</SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
I have made no assumptions; don’t trust me. Rather, compare your NIV with your KJV. I’m not the one responsible for omitting those 17 verses and 64,000 words.</SPAN></SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN>
No one has “belittled” anything. The facts are the facts, regardless of how one perceives the info. The enemy would love to divert us into the flesh over it and shift the focus away from the real issues.
</SPAN></SPAN>
Up until now, you haven’t asked for proof of anything. Now I’ve provided that item.</SPAN>
</SPAN>
Of course! If I am mucked up, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. I want to be admonished, reproved, and corrected in truth, because that is how wisdom is obtained. I was no different than the majority when the Lord put this bible version issue in my lap.
Indeed.
It would be nice. However, the majority is so ill-informed and conditioned on the issue that I often feel like I'm dialoguing with myself!
"Contempt"? That is an ad hominem attack, i.e. an attack on an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
No offence intended, but we don't select a "bible" based on our feelings. We select a bible based on God's truth.
You obviously believe all that you posted here are good things. I do not. We could pick out any one item and chat it up, such as the issue of the dead sea scrolls.
"devout adherence" and "abominable"? As I posted before, once you become aware of the facts of the matter, there is no other choice BUT the KJV. But this, of course, chaffs many people's hide.
I am not one such.
Sadly, the more normal scenario would have multitudes of provocateurs posting all sorts of falsehoods, with the others following them blindly. Very few are willing to take the heat that comes with a stand for the truth -- feelings be damned.
Again, do not judge me by those who have gone before me. If you have an issue you'd like to chat up, then by all means, present it here. We will not leave that issue until both "sides" are satisfied that the topic has been given full coverage. I have primary source documentation for any and all assertions.
Then please show me!
You and I can have a differing rendition of the facts (you see something from one side of the street, me from the other), but the truth is immutable.
What would that be?
Amen, brother.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Last edited:
tulsa 2011
Member
lawrenceb, trying to change the view of most Christians on the issues of the Textus Receptus vs the Westcott-Hort Greek text and the King James, Geneva Bible and Tyndale Bible vs the huge number of English translations from the Westcott-Hort is like trying to change their use of the dialectic, and their loyalty to their man made theologies, for example the theology of John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafter. Its only a small number who have ears to hear.
Last edited:
lawrenceb
Member
This is true, and I fully understand your frustration, as the dialectic has already conquered and defeated the church. Yet praise the Lord that our respective callings do not require us to convict anyone! That is the job of the Holy Spirit, while ours is to stand and deliver.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa. 55:11)
Numbers 15:30, "But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people."
Deuteronomy 17:13, "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously."
Psalms 19:13, "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression."
When you're confronted by presumptions or accusations, you'll know what it's based on, and it's based on natural reason. Unless it's an unrebuttable presumption where, in fact, you have committed evil, and there's a witness. But we're confronted with rebuttable presumptions every day and we probably don't know it because we're trained to 'answer the good officer's questions.' We've already been conditioned with a response.
Presumptions are something that the natural man has created. The natural man comes up with a presumption and they cast a burden on you to prove otherwise. The natural man presumes evil, and those who presume evil where there is no evil, they are wicked men. You either serve Christ or you serve man, and that's why man will presume evil because that's what they involve themselves in, and that's all they see. Until you bring the Light of the Word to them and shine the light on them, and that does away with the evil if what you bring to them is the truth. The only way you're going to be able to rebut their presumption is to bring the Sword of the Word to them, to bring the Truth to them. That is the only thing which will overcome wickedness, and that's our duty.
Here's a typical definition of presumption:
Presumptions: "A Presumption is but a rule of procedure used to supply wants of facts and its only effect is to cast burden on opposite party of going forward with proof." Chechy v. City of Hamtrunk, Mich. 170 NW 2nd 58.
This all stems out of reason. And the reason they do that is because everyone is in the world (not necessarily of the world) and when we're in the world we are in tribulation, and this is part of the tribulation; the natural man presuming evil.
A typical example of a presumptuous question would be something like, "Have you beaten your wife lately?" Either a "yes" or "no" answer is bad. This question "presumes" you have beaten your wife already. If you answer "yes," you admit guilt. If you answer "No," you still admit to having beat your wife, just not lately. Their presumptuous questions steer your mind to the answers they want. In scripture, you don't find where God asks a leading question.
Now, our Master, Christ Jesus rebutted many presumptions, and whenever we do these things, we always have to look to him, because he is our example. Here's a couple of the presumptions he rebutted, and it deals with the Pharisees and Sadducees because they always presumed evil, due to their natural reason, they were all "reasoning together."
In Matthew 12:23-28, they made a presumption that Jesus was casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Jesus rebutted this presumption with the Truth in question format. By asking them a question, you shift the burden from yourself to the intruder. In this case, Jesus rebutted their presumption with the following two question:
Matthew 12:26-27, "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?"
That's how we rebut their presumptions, you bring the Sword of the Word to bear down on them. A presumption is a lie to begin with, and the natural man admits that when he says it's a burden they put on people. And the only way to rebut a lie is to bring the truth, and the only place you find the truth is in the Word of God.
In Luke 20:1-8 and Matthew 21:23-27, the Pharisees asked Jesus, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?" (Matthew 21:23). That was their presumption of evil because they already had in their mind that he was casting out devils by Beelzebub. By asking this question, the Pharisees passed the ball in Jesus' court. How did Jesus rebut their presumption? With another question! Now the ball is in their court, and the burden is upon them now. This is how Jesus responded after the Pharisees asked him their question:
Matthew 21:24-25, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?"
Then the Pharisees "reasoned" with themselves, trying to figure out how to answer Jesus. If they answered "from heaven," they feared Jesus would ask them, "then why didn't you believe him?" And if they answered "from men," they feared being stoned to death by the people because the people believed John was a prophet from God. So what did the Pharisees say to Jesus?
Matthew 21:27, "And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."
The Pharisees could not give an answer! So they lost by default. Their own presumptuous question (evil intent) was destroyed by another question (placing the burden upon them instead) that brought the Truth to them and exposed their hypocrisy.
When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, Jesus rebutted with the Word of God every time. And that's what we must do. By doing that, you not only honour the father, but you glorify him to the natural man. By expressing the hope that is in us, we glorify the Father.
I believe God would have us endeavor to bump up that number! And ours is a relatively 'cheap date' - a keyboard and a bit of time and we're off and running!
Matthew 11:29-30, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
The ‘rest’ that Jesus promises is a release from the works of sin, not from the service of God. The ‘yoke’ represents diligence, submission, humility, patience, and being yoked together with our fellow servants, keeping up the communion of saints. Two yokes cannot be taken on simultaneously, for that would represent double mindedness. Exercising your right of avoidance shakes off the burden of that heavier yoke so that the easy yoke can be taken on.
Deuteronomy 22:10, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an *** together."
A "yoke" is something fixed together on the neck of oxen for the purpose of binding them so that they might draw the plow. The reason God forbids and ox and an *** to be yoked together is because they would plow in different directions. This is also the reason why God commanded us to be seperate from unbelievers, and why Jesus commanded to be yoked to Him. If we do His will, He will guide our steps. If we do our own will, we will pull in different directions.
We must realize "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3). When you read the Scripture, you never read or hear about any man of God putting on a legal personality. When you start taking on legal personality, you take on obligations and duties that are extra and outside the Word of God. To get back to the simplicity in Christ, where the yoke is easy and the burden is light, you must start shedding those things that have to do with the codes, rules, and regulations of the natural man:
1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
It's like rat poison; it's 99% good food, but it's that 1% of poison that kills the rat. We know what the rats like, "Caesar" knows what the people like. Everything Caesar does, he has an ingredients list on it, and people just look at the good but they don't look for the bad. This has to do with separating the bone from the marrow and the wheat from the chaff. If we're not able to do that then we'll fall into those things, and that's why we continually have to be diligent on these things, and the diligence has to do with separating the lie from the truth, and to not let the two mix. No matter how hard you try, you can't do anything against the truth (2 Corinthians 13:8). You can try to mix the lie with it, but the truth still stays pure. And that's where we have to remain, in the truth at all times, and eliminate the lies and untruths that have been taught to us since we came out of the womb.
The bad news:
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues (Matt. 10:17).
The good news:
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. (John 16:32-33).
Last edited:
tulsa 2011
Member
Thanks lawrenceb
"Dr" C. I. Scofield's 1917 Notes On the "Two Best Manuscripts"
Westcott and Hort attempted - partially successfully - to replace the
Textus Receptus Greek text in the eighteen eighties and
dispensationalist theology began in the 19th century. We can ask if
there was any connection between early dispensationalism and the
Westcott-Hort revolt against the Textus Receptus and the King James
Version. There is such a connection in C.I. Scofield's notes placed
alongside the text of the Word of God in his Reference Bible (1909,
1917). It was revised again by Oxford University Press in 1967.
Several New Testament texts predict a falling away from the Gospel of
Christ, and a leavening of the doctrines given by Christ through the
Apostles.
II Thessalonians 2: 3 says "Let no man deceive you by any means for
that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
Even Revelation 12: 14-16, in highly metaphoric language, is about
Satan's attempt to defeat the Gospel of Christ. "And to the woman
were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the
wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and
times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the
serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that
he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth
helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the
flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."
The flood coming from the mouth of serpent is the falling away from
the Gospel of Christ. Satan inspired his minions the False Prophets
to create and teach false doctrines. In addition, we can see the late
19th century movement, led by Westcott and Hort, to overthrow the
Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Version, and to promote new
English translations based on the Greek texts associated with
Alexandria, Egypt as a part of the flood sent out by the serpent.
Finally, beginning especially in the 19th century, and getting going
in the U.S. in the early fifties, the anti-Christian humanism coming
out from Hegel and Marx conditioned the culture surrounding the
Christian churches - and soon the churches themselves - to depart from
the Gospel of Christ, as "it is written," and to replace it with man
made theology - and to take up the dialectic procedure of argument.
The dialectic is a form of quarreling against that which is fixed, or
absolute, like the word of God. Often, the dialectic is used to
defend one's relationship with something, the man made theology he was
taught, his denomination, his pastor, or his congregation.
In 1881 Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament text
based upon the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, out of which the English
Revised Version in England (1881) was translated.
C.I. Scofield would have used the Revised Version, based on the
Westcott-Hort Greek text rather than the Textus Receptus which was the
Greek text used for the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560)
and the King James Version (1611). But Scofield knew that if he was to
get dispensationalism accepted, he would have to use the time honored
King James Version.
So Scofield used the King James Version - but he inserted notes right
on the pages of the Bible indicating his (Scofield's) preference for
the verse wordings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scofield even goes
so far as to say for II Thessalonians 2: 2 in the A.V. or Authorized
Version - the King James Version - is a mistranslation.
Apparently in 1892 for “Sermon preached by Dr. C.I. Scofield,” was the
first time the world was told that Scofield had a doctorate degree.
But - on an Internet site they say "his
is the first known instance of Scofield’s use of the title, “Dr.”
However, there is no indication anywhere that he ever received any
doctorate from any school, not even an honorary doctorate. For that
matter there is no evidence that he ever attended or graduated from
any institution of higher learning, neither in law nor in religion.
Its not that such degrees are all that important, but that he claimed
to have something he did not have."
A web site says "The other act of
1901 that has escaped public attention was his admission into the
Lotos Club in New York City. The Lotos Club, an exclusive social
literati club, sponsored and mentored various kinds of artists.
Article I, Section II of its Constitution reads, “The primary object
of this Club shall be to promote social intercourse among journalists,
artists, and members of the musical and dramatic professions, and
representatives, amateurs, and friends of Literature, Science, and the
Fine Arts: and at least one third of the members shall be connected
with said classes” (Canfield, p. 173). Not the usual domain of
Fundamentalist Christians.
Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)
Below are some of the comments of "Dr" Scofield saying
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which he refers to as "the two best
manuscripts," or "the best manuscript," have better verse wordings.
Page 1022, Matthew 16:20, margin note "c"
Omit "Jesus."
Page 1023, Matthew 17:21, margin note "j"
The two best MSS. omit verse 21.
Page 1031, Matthew 23:14, margin note "s"
The best MSS. omit verse 14.
Page 1057, Mark 9:29, margin note "u"
The two best MSS. omit "and fasting."
Page 1061, Mark 11:26, margin note "i"
Verse 26 is omitted from the best MSS.
Page 1325, 1 John 5:7, margin note "o"
It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
Page 1069, Mark 16:9-20, footnote "1"
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most
ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and
Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations.
Page 1201, Romans 8:1, margin note "b"
The statement ends with "Christ Jesus"; the last ten words are interpolated.
Page 1212, 1 Corinthians 1:8, footnote "2"
A.V. has "day of Christ," #2Th 2:2 incorrectly, for "day of the Lord"
1216, 1 Corinthians 5:5, margin note "d"
Some ancient authorities omit "Jesus."
Page 1271, 2 Thessalonians, Introduction
The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a
mistranslation in the A.V. of 2:2 where "day of Christ is at hand" See
[1Co 1:8] should be, "day of the Lord is now present" (See [Isa 2:12],
ref).
The issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a
matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand
posts longer than a few sentences.
You have to see a number of verses to get an idea about the
differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean.
And then you might wonder why C.I. Scofield at the turn of the century
liked the Westcott-Hort Greek text more than the Textus Receptus.
"Dr" C. I. Scofield's 1917 Notes On the "Two Best Manuscripts"
Westcott and Hort attempted - partially successfully - to replace the
Textus Receptus Greek text in the eighteen eighties and
dispensationalist theology began in the 19th century. We can ask if
there was any connection between early dispensationalism and the
Westcott-Hort revolt against the Textus Receptus and the King James
Version. There is such a connection in C.I. Scofield's notes placed
alongside the text of the Word of God in his Reference Bible (1909,
1917). It was revised again by Oxford University Press in 1967.
Several New Testament texts predict a falling away from the Gospel of
Christ, and a leavening of the doctrines given by Christ through the
Apostles.
II Thessalonians 2: 3 says "Let no man deceive you by any means for
that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
Even Revelation 12: 14-16, in highly metaphoric language, is about
Satan's attempt to defeat the Gospel of Christ. "And to the woman
were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the
wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and
times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the
serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that
he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth
helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the
flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."
The flood coming from the mouth of serpent is the falling away from
the Gospel of Christ. Satan inspired his minions the False Prophets
to create and teach false doctrines. In addition, we can see the late
19th century movement, led by Westcott and Hort, to overthrow the
Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Version, and to promote new
English translations based on the Greek texts associated with
Alexandria, Egypt as a part of the flood sent out by the serpent.
Finally, beginning especially in the 19th century, and getting going
in the U.S. in the early fifties, the anti-Christian humanism coming
out from Hegel and Marx conditioned the culture surrounding the
Christian churches - and soon the churches themselves - to depart from
the Gospel of Christ, as "it is written," and to replace it with man
made theology - and to take up the dialectic procedure of argument.
The dialectic is a form of quarreling against that which is fixed, or
absolute, like the word of God. Often, the dialectic is used to
defend one's relationship with something, the man made theology he was
taught, his denomination, his pastor, or his congregation.
In 1881 Westcott and Hort published their Greek New Testament text
based upon the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, out of which the English
Revised Version in England (1881) was translated.
C.I. Scofield would have used the Revised Version, based on the
Westcott-Hort Greek text rather than the Textus Receptus which was the
Greek text used for the Tyndale Bible (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560)
and the King James Version (1611). But Scofield knew that if he was to
get dispensationalism accepted, he would have to use the time honored
King James Version.
So Scofield used the King James Version - but he inserted notes right
on the pages of the Bible indicating his (Scofield's) preference for
the verse wordings of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scofield even goes
so far as to say for II Thessalonians 2: 2 in the A.V. or Authorized
Version - the King James Version - is a mistranslation.
Apparently in 1892 for “Sermon preached by Dr. C.I. Scofield,” was the
first time the world was told that Scofield had a doctorate degree.
But - on an Internet site they say "his
is the first known instance of Scofield’s use of the title, “Dr.”
However, there is no indication anywhere that he ever received any
doctorate from any school, not even an honorary doctorate. For that
matter there is no evidence that he ever attended or graduated from
any institution of higher learning, neither in law nor in religion.
Its not that such degrees are all that important, but that he claimed
to have something he did not have."
A web site says "The other act of
1901 that has escaped public attention was his admission into the
Lotos Club in New York City. The Lotos Club, an exclusive social
literati club, sponsored and mentored various kinds of artists.
Article I, Section II of its Constitution reads, “The primary object
of this Club shall be to promote social intercourse among journalists,
artists, and members of the musical and dramatic professions, and
representatives, amateurs, and friends of Literature, Science, and the
Fine Arts: and at least one third of the members shall be connected
with said classes” (Canfield, p. 173). Not the usual domain of
Fundamentalist Christians.
Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)
Below are some of the comments of "Dr" Scofield saying
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which he refers to as "the two best
manuscripts," or "the best manuscript," have better verse wordings.
Page 1022, Matthew 16:20, margin note "c"
Omit "Jesus."
Page 1023, Matthew 17:21, margin note "j"
The two best MSS. omit verse 21.
Page 1031, Matthew 23:14, margin note "s"
The best MSS. omit verse 14.
Page 1057, Mark 9:29, margin note "u"
The two best MSS. omit "and fasting."
Page 1061, Mark 11:26, margin note "i"
Verse 26 is omitted from the best MSS.
Page 1325, 1 John 5:7, margin note "o"
It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
Page 1069, Mark 16:9-20, footnote "1"
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most
ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and
Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations.
Page 1201, Romans 8:1, margin note "b"
The statement ends with "Christ Jesus"; the last ten words are interpolated.
Page 1212, 1 Corinthians 1:8, footnote "2"
A.V. has "day of Christ," #2Th 2:2 incorrectly, for "day of the Lord"
1216, 1 Corinthians 5:5, margin note "d"
Some ancient authorities omit "Jesus."
Page 1271, 2 Thessalonians, Introduction
The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a
mistranslation in the A.V. of 2:2 where "day of Christ is at hand" See
[1Co 1:8] should be, "day of the Lord is now present" (See [Isa 2:12],
ref).
The issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a
matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand
posts longer than a few sentences.
You have to see a number of verses to get an idea about the
differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean.
And then you might wonder why C.I. Scofield at the turn of the century
liked the Westcott-Hort Greek text more than the Textus Receptus.
Last edited: