Man defending the kjv is very important many Jews dont believe in Jesus because the Catholics killed a lot of them in the name Of the Lord. Constantine used a corrupt bible which many Jews believe is the same one that we use... How sad it makes me mad though man 99 percent of Jews don't believe in Jesus for the dumbest reasons !!!!! They have been tricked just as so many Americans have. Don't be fooled people he KJV is the only version that is from authentic sources that has not been corrupted !
That is why we have to follow the LAST and FINAL Testament(QURAN); which is not changed a bit since more than 1400 years. As a miracle of that book 1 out of 100 Muslim remember that book BY_HEART from A to Z in the 100% same way(no water in which country/language he/she born with), since more 1400 years.
Press censorship is a fact of life almost everywhere the Vatican holds sway because only by lying, fraud and deceit can Rome proceed with its ungodly agenda: The Holy Bible (KJV) is the great whore's greatest phobia besides the Son of God Himself.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
Rome's fictions of wafer worship and the "queen of heaven" Co-Redemptress are absent from the Bible.
"Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence,... that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of B and Aleph sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 161]
"But though there are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts [than B or Aleph], yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz., the Peshitto of the second century, the group of Latin Versions.... So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS. upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 74]
"It will be found in the end that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, Aleph, and D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. [B, Aleph, A, C, and D] places them upon a pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 25]
"The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, goes step by step in unbroken succession regularly back to the earliest times. . . . No one doubts the coincidence in all essential points of the printed text with the text of the Cursives." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 236
Each individual Christian will make a decision on this matter, of which text is correct. and if he chooses a translation based upon corrupted manuscripts which reflect views which omit the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His virgin birth, then the decision has been made to extend this error to the next generation.
Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is....
it is important to note that age is relative in the sense that you could have a corrupt 3rd century manuscript or a faithful 10th century manuscript.
"you could have a corrupt 3rd century or a faithful 10th century manuscript."
By what standard can we verify whether or not the 3rd century manuscript is corrupt or a10th century manuscript is faithful if we cannot rely on an older manuscript to verify the thruth? And, If I see that the versions I read differ from one another, I investigate why, I dont assume that there is this NWO conspiracy behind it all.
My standard is the older the better, but yours is the more the better, yet the KJV doesnt agree with most of the Byzantine MS, and its only based on about half a dozen late medieval manuscripts.
"Yes that is true, and the Originals came from Antioch, not Alexandria, where most of the heresies originated."
Give me break, are you kidding me? Antioch, Rome, Alexandria each had believers and heretics, just like every other place, so don't give me that cop-out.
The reason why most scholars believe the Alex.MSS are good is because theyre older,which means they were copied less. Everyone knows when the originals were written, a copy was made, then a copy of that copy was made, then a copy of the last copy was made, and so on.
Errors occurred during this process. The MSS, which came from Alex., go back so far they could have been copied directly from the originals. We dont know that they were, but certainly they were copied less times than the much later MSS used for the TR, from which we get the KJV.
But to assert that these scholars dont accept the later Byz. MSS because theyre part of this global elite conspiracy that
wants to deny the deity of Christ, is absurd. Too many good and honorable men of God, read from the modern versions they live godly lives, alot more actually than the most famous KJVO's I know of, so the versions do nothing to hinder God's sovereign rule over mankind.
To assert that the modern versions keep people away from beleiving the truth is to deny the sovereignty of God. I know youre not implying this, but in essence, youre saying God is unable to reveal the truth to anyone bc the copyist's errors and modern translations gets in the way. That is the conclusion one must arrive with to understand the nitty-gritty of the ideology circulating the KJVO movement.
To assert that "modern versions keep people away from believing the truth" indicates an awareness of objective reality since they all (a) mistranslate Scriptures and (b) rely on corrupt--although old--texts. An old counterfeit does not become a genuine item by virtue of its age: that recognition was also the basis for the work which led to the various TR recensions.
By 1611, Scriptural manuscript evidence sufficed to produce the King James Bible without textual errors, omissions, or additions.
Yet, we got an independent KJVOnlyist baptist preacher, that, aside from burning Bible is a facsist NAZI-like demeanor, preaching the most heretical sermons I've heard,(i.e. you dont need to repent to be saved) he went on TV and admitted that he prayed for Obama to die from brain cancer just like Ted Kennedy. Is that appropiate behavior? He's one of yours, please explain, how relying solely on the KJV has helped that individual?
I dare to say, zmode82, that you know full well that your most recent posts are nothing but an extended straw man. They have absolutely nothing to do with the sound Biblical doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures in their entirety by God Himself.
You may cavil obsessively, but that endeavor is really pointless. Ultimately, you will not prove any error, omission, or addition in the King James Bible: others have tried in generations past, and all of them have failed sooner or later.
Hey, personally, I hate bringing up people's dirty laundry in the past, just as much as I hate to bring up the Inquisition when I dialogue with Catholics, but when the assertion is made that somehow the mistake of an individual or a group is rooted to the ideology they stand by, well 2 can play at that game. The truth is translations(KJV or other) have nothing to do with influencing any individual, so I dont wanna hear the "corrupt" modern versions "corrupts" people.
People choose the modern versions and thus, they choose to be be deceived, as you are. Some people don't know that the MV are corrupt, but after they learn that they are, they have a CHOICE to reject them. You have made your CHOICE, and God's is not responsible for it-you are.
Never heard that one before. They deny the facts the same reason you do, they don't want any final authority over them.
No 'good and honorable' man advocates the modern versions against the KJB,after learning the facts. He is defending a lie, as you are.
A man might be using a modern version who doen't know the issue, but once one does learn that the modern versions are corrupt (as this video shows) to defend them is to defend a lie.
'one marked characteristic of this copy is the great number of it's omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting 'an abbriviated text of the New Testament: ' and certainly he facts he states that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses....2,556 times in all...(Criticism of the New Testament, pg.120)
That is one of the great 'copies' produced in Egypt.
A good copy has to have a good source and a good copier as well.
Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text
omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33
omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16
omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12
omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14
....AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY."
. Burgon's Admiration for the King James Bible Translators. Dean Burgon also wrote: "Verily, those men understood their craft! `There were GIANTS in those days.' . . . the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 196]
Although Dean Burgon said that there were a few minor places in the Textus Receptus that might be changed, he NEVER said that there was any need for changing the text of the King James Bible. Until his death Dean Burgon was, in a very real sense, what Mr. White calls "King James Only" in that this is the ONLY English Bible that he used and loved.
Dean Burgon Set Forth Three "Test Places" to Test Out His Sound Methods Versus Westcott and Hort's Fallacious and Unsound Methods: (1) "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark" (2) "the Angelic Hymn" of Luke 2:14; and (3) 1 Timothy 3:16.
Dean Burgon was a man who James White called a true scholar 'of the first rank' (The King James Controversy, p.91)
because Burgon believed the TR did need to be revised. But ONLY if the strict critera was met, which the critical text advocates didn't meet. That is the partial truths you get from someone like James White.
Dean Burgon focuses in upon the fourfold basis on which any true or accurate, thorough-going and major revision of the Textus Receptus should take place, (if ever), namely, the judicious and complete use of (1) all copies; (2) all versions; (3) all Church Fathers; and (4) all Lectionaries....
Dean Burgon's method in such revision must be followed thoroughly and completely, or the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible should be left alone.
'He pointed out as well that the Patristic evidence has not by any means attracted "the degree of attention which it deserves." This is still very much true to the shame of so-called "Textual Critics" of today.'
2. Dean Burgon Argued in Favor of Use of "Patristic Testimony as Opposed to Hort's Wanting to Get Rid of it...
The masterful knowledge and use of the Church Fathers' original quotations of Luke 2:14 by Dean Burgon to establish once and for all the veracity of the Textus Receptus at this point
"Oh so now you are sating that you don't need the 'Originals' and trust the copies?"
Yes, just like we don't need the 1st original dollar bill to verify whether or not the bill in your wallet isnt a counterfeit. If the copies disagree, we use the oldest manscript we can trace to the 1st century, and you know the TR is not it.
The NT has a fragment within one generation from its original, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autographs. Most of the NT is less than 200 years, and the entire N T within 250 years from the date of its completion.The accuracy of the copies is greater for the NT than for other ancient secular books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
Dean Burgon was a true scholar of the 1st rank as James White acknowledges.(The KJVOnly Controversy 2nd edit, pg 130) and I most certainly agree, scholarly enough to recognize that the Comma J was a later addition without a valid claim to being original.(The Revision Revised,1883, 483. )
However, Edward F Hills makes the most irrefutable arguement ever.
"In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few readings of the Latn. Vulg. not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the GUIDING PROVIDENCE of GOD. In these rare instances GOD CALLED upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-speaking Church."(The KJV Defended, p.213)
Hey, when the claim is made that God guided, or divinely interferes to make rare occurences like these happen, how can anyone prove of disprove such a claim?
I accept the possiblity of Hill's claim, but I am just not that charismatic to be absolutely sure of it.
Well, imagine having to believe in the Bible! And so how did God preserve all the Books of the Bible? Can you explain it to me? Or do you take it on faith?
That isn't Hills argument, that is his final appeal. Hills lays out the case for 1Jn.5:9 very clearly and the case is very sound.
You just don't want to believe it, so you don't.
As I said, you have a spirit of strong delusion in you.
So, again, I ask you, which version is your final authority. When the versions disagree among themselves, which one do you choose as being right and why?
That is the James White method, get all the versions and just choose the one YOU BELIEVE is correct.
And the Burgon believed that the KJB shouldn't be altered,so he would have left it alone, no matter what he believed about it.
'Though he thought there might be some slight revision of the Greek Text, Dean Burgon wanted to keep the English text of the King James Bible intact without a single change! ( Waite,Dean's Burgon Confidence in the King James Bible, pg.18)
Are you sure about those page numbers, in my work, (a second printing) it is dealing with why GOD should be IN 1Tim.3:16, the word that the modern versions leave out.
Their works are not considered extensive enough to give an adquate understanding of what text they used.
'Supporters of the WH theory point out that Chrysostom... is the earliest Father to use the Byzantine text. However they customarily neglect to mention that there are no earlier Antichian Fathers than Chysostom who literary remains are extensive enough so that their support New Testament quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support'
The objections hence raised against that text are perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favor, which is deducible from the internal evidence and the external testimony of the African Church, which testimony remains to be disposed of before we can consider it spurious.
Frederick Nolan, Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate Or Received Text Of The New Testament, (1815)
On summing up the arguments which have been urged against the text of the heavenly witnesses, I cannot therefore discover any thing which materially affects the authenticity of this verse, either in the omissions of the Greek manuscripts or the silence of the Greek fathers, in the variations of the Latin version or the allegorical explanations of the Latin polemics.
'Now let us divide off...Let those people who do not believe the Bible and who are critical of this and that part of it, go clear over to the other side. Let them stand behind the Devil's guns...Give us the out-and-out opposition of infidelity rather than the work of these hybrid theologians, these mongrel ecclesiastics,....who BELIEVE the Bible, and do NOT believe it. I TAKE UP THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION; I CONSIDER IT TO BE A PERFECT BIBLE (Thomas Talmage-1880)
'it [Das Newe Testament Deutzch]...was based on the 1519 edition of Erasmus Greek New Testament (which lacked 1Jn.5:7)...(The Reformation of the Bible and The Bible of the Reformation), Jarsolav Pelikan, pg 51
'He laid the foundation of the Textus Receptus, which was brought into its mature shape by R. Stephen, in his "royal edition" of 1550 (the basis of the English Textus Receptus), and by the Elzevirs in their editions of 1624 and 1633 (the basis of the Continental Textus Receptus), and which maintained the supremacy till Lachmann inaugurated the adoption of an older textual basis (1831).'
'Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text. He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his third edition (1522) against his better judgment.'
Not 'slavishly following the Gr. text' doesn't mean that it wasn't followed most of the time. sometimes he used the 'old latin' as did the KJB translators.
Seriously, all this hooklah is pointless, to tell you the truth. The real issue here is that the KJV is not a perfect translation, maybe in your own little world, but in the real world there is just not enough evidence to support your case.
You presented no textual facts to support your misreading of 1John 5:7. Either you have been misled into supposing that someone who is an illiterate in an ancient language (i.e., you in Kioine Greek, zmode82) ought to make corrections of the authoritative expert translators of Scriptural texts, or perhaps you jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. In either case, your failure to perceive the meaning of a Biblical passage in a foreign tongue and to interpret it is your rash mistake.
Logic alone demonstrates that perfect translation is possible, and I could cite languages by the score in which my Text Comments could be TRANSLATED PERFECTLY. (I admit, zmode82, that I could not make the same assertion about yours, however, because they are so nonsensical in so many blatant, convoluted, and specifically peculiar ways.)
The translators of the King James Bible interpreted the Hebrew and Greek of the Old Testament and New Testament flawlessly into exemplary English.
Well, you haven't actually PROVEN an error in the KJB. The evidence is very clear, but you are simply rejecting it so you won't have any final authority over you.
Have you read the very original manuscripts that the Apostles wrote? If not, how do you know the Alexandrian's ommited anything, or the Byzantinians added words that were never there?
Now I can admit that maybe my "scholarly" abilities are not on par, but then again I never admitted I was a scholar or at a scholar level. My skills are surely not as impressive as yours, Eddie. You should be very proud, but still judging by the wonderful display by the scholars on the Ankerberg debate vs. the KJVExtremists, do I really need to prove anything at this point?
Also,whether Luther "slavishly"(synonymous with "subserviently"meaning serving or acting in a subordinate capacity) I was actually being generous by not adding the wrod, still the evidence is in the fact that Luther never added the CJ himself in any of his translations, and he expressly stated that he considered the words a clumsy insertion fabricated to refute the Arians, as I posted his comment on the CJ earlier.
By adding the word slavishly or not, it still doesnt add or take away the meaning of what I said earlier, and judging by Luther's comments on the Comma J, I havent the slightest doubt that he didnt even take the Erasmus text seriously at all.
Well, then again, now that I think about it, no, I wasnt being that generous by not adding the words "slavishly." Don't mind me, I'm tired, I've been working all night
Maybe if you abandon the myths of MMM-onlyism (MultipleModernMISTRANSLATIONS-onlyism) for a steady dose of the Holy Bible as God Himself has preserved it in the Authorized Version (KJV), zmode82, you might eventually develop a sense of history.
The revisionism that you espouse may deceive the simple and unlearned like yourself, but it never fooled God.
'not slavishly' means Luther didn't follow Erasmus without question. Which is good, since neither did the KJB translator's either. He should have followed the Old Latin in regards to 1Jn.5:7 since the earlier German translations from the Latin, did do so and had it.
'The basis for the New Testament was the second edition of Erasmus'-Schaff
''Basis'3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient
Slavishly-
deliberately imitative; lacking originality: a slavish reproduction
Ok let me see if I understand your dogma, judgeing by all this obsession you have towards the KJV, are saying that those who love to read the modern translations, even if some of them still reads from the KJV, are not truly saved bc they dont beleive the KJV is the perfect translation?
But don't waste your time with me, Eddie boy, I am not at your level, you know? If I am not mistaken, I think James White still has the challenge open for any KJVO to debate with him on this issue, may be you should give him a call, you could go down in history.
"Holland also has a review of White's work and of course Ruckman does as well."
And White has a rebuttal to those claims by thos gentlemen on his website.
Hey, isn't Ruckman pro-choice and an adulterer? I thought those who read from the KJV only live godly lives, not like those scholars who advocate the various translations.
Just as you are obviously clueless as to my scientific studies of Darwin's failed hypotheses, zmode82, so you also have no idea about Peter Ruckman's advocacy. There is nothing scholarly in your Text Comments by your own rather frank admission, but that recognition does not seem to inhibit you from an incessant barage of tedious and almost transparent straw men.
You have not proven any assertion of errors, additions or omissions in the King James Bible, ostensibly because you cannot.
Maybe I am clueless to your scientific studies, but judging by your earlier comment you said that kids are being taught in schools that they are apes, and to my knowledge I've been taught that in my school, and I don't recall that the evolutionary theory shows that as well.
Failed theories--like those of Darwin of the revisionists who aligned with Wescott and Hort--proved nothing, but they do "show" their originators' propensity to errors, zmode82. They are very like your Text Comments.
With respect to your posts, zmode82, and Ed's replies to them, your talk of extremism is frankly witless. Logically, if anyone represents baseless dogmatism in its clearest expression on these posts, it is you, because the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are still the inspired words of God when they are faithfully interpreted into another tongue (e.g. English) as an axiomatic matter of common sense. Free of errors, omissions, and additions, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures in English.
Wrong again, zmode82. What is truly pathetic is your failure to recognize that the interpretation of Scripture faithfully and without error, omission or addition into another language retains the validity of the of the original Scriptural text.
As always, logic and common sense are not the basis of "extremism." Bias against interpretation, however, is not sound Biblical doctrine.
Mistaken, jaundiced, idiotic, or frivolous remarks about the AV have arisen in the past, zmode82, and like yours contniue to surface these days, but none of them has ever met its intrinsic onus probandi. Contrary to Scriptures, they typically seek to assert that God Himself has not preserved the Holy Bible, His own inspired words in their entirety.
For the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, flawlessly preserved in the lingua franca of the contemporary world.
"Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy" (James 5:11).
"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name" (Jeremiah 32:18).
See my point? I we read the KJV by the standards of today's english, the KJV translators are guilty of blaspheming bc the common use of the word "pitiful" in today's common english means "pathetic." You don't think God is pathetic do you? God Forbid!
The English word "pitiful" retains the meaning expressed in James 5 in its proper context. That any term may be construed variously today is not at all unusual in our language or most others including Hebrew and Koine Greek. Translation (of secular texts) is as much an art as a science, but Scriptural preservation by the Lord God is sound Biblical doctrine.
I do not tamper, therefore, with the TR (properly understood) in Greek, the Masoretic Text in Hebrew, or the King James Bible in English.
There is nothing "archaic" about the King James Bible, zmode82, but it is not a comic book or a punk rockers' chat room either. Ordinary English-speakers of average intelligence have no trouble (intellectually) making sense of what it says--if they are in fact literate in their native tongue.
For years, iIliteracy has been growing in the USA because of a widespread policy--de jure and de facto--of godlessness in the public schools. Nor does teaching kids that they are apes promote erudition.
Teaching kids that they are apes? Although, I dont agree with everything that is being taught in schools concerning evolution, it is very clear you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.
Simple, yes or no, am I going to hell because I dont beleive the KJV is a perfect translation, despite that I still beleive the same truth translated in that version, as well as others(Jn14:6)?
Obviously, potential perdition is of great personal significance to any man or women, zmode, but the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8ff).
Some people do not spend every waking moment on their computers, zmode82.
Since 1611, the King James Bible has been the fully reliable final authority for the English-speaking peoples because it is the Holy Scriptures in our common language, but the Internet is not even 30-years-old. Long before the advent of the PC, however, Dean Burgon debunked the myth that any text, which was not Scripture, made its way into the pages of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV).
One reason is the evidence from the quotations of the GREEK Scriptures by the 1st century GREEK fathers. Any one of these types of evidence is enough to confirm the authenticity of the originals. Just about every verse of the NT in GREEK can be recovered from quotes of the NT by the GREEK fathers in their writings predating the earliest copies of the GREEK MSS we have.
The Scriptures have been preserved, in the that God ordained it, thru the visible evidence we have. However, if the arguement is that God waited 1600 yrs from the 1st centuryAD to preserve His word, by divinely inspiring Erasmus to come up with his last edition of the TR, and the KJV translators to give us the one and only true Bible in English, then that arguement can't be refuted. I mean, how can I prove or disprove that someone received divine revelation?
Oh, so now you are saying that you don't need the 'Orginals' and can trust the copies?
And when the copies disagree, what standard do you use to decide which one is correct or in error?
The fact is, you don't want any Bible to be the authority over you, you and the rest of you Bible rejectors want the 'freedom' to reject any scripture you want to.
You are simply spiritual anarchists, and that is why you hate the KJB, because of it's authority.
Regardless of its age, the currency in my wallet is not counterfeit--unlike the corrupt LXX concocted by an Alexandrian heretic zmode82,
Luther, like the other early Reformers, understood in principle that Rome's text (e.g., the Codex Vaticanus) was corrupt. Although his own reading of 1John 5:7 was erroneous, the correct text of the "Comma" was restored to Luther's German Bible in the XVI Century after his death. It agrees with Beza, Erasmus (third edition) and the King James Bible.
Because it is a good copy. How do you know you have a counterfeit? You check it against a real one. The real one is the standard by which all bills are judged.
If it doesn't match it is a counterfiet And the counterfeit bills are destroyed.
Why are you asking me that question, it was you who said that you needed the Originals. So, how do you know anything in the Bible is correct if you don't have the Originals?
The fact is don't care about what the Bible says about anything, you want to pick and choose what you want to believe.
The Church Father's did quote the scriptures extensively, but we have nothing before the 4th century on the Gr. Fathers. And the Church Father's strongly support the KJB readings, that is why the Critical text avoids referring to them.
Burgon commented on that. But how would you know this, your textual education is limited to anti-KJB rhetoric.
By the way, zmode82, "head banging" can sometimes be treated successfully by doctors who are trained in neurology and psychiatry. If such behavior is recurrent or long standing, please consider seeking professional help as soon as possible.
When one considers how you wrote in your previous posts, zmode82, the "figure of speech" could just as easily be taken as a "cry for help."
To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth."God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1).
"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" (Psalm 12:6ff).
The historical evidence about Jesus Christ is derived from the Bible. And there is nothing in any outside historical record that would lead you to get saved.
So, according to your reasoning, without the Originals we can't know what God really said, so how do you know you are saved?
Well, its obvious you couldn't give me a direct response. So, I'll answer the question for you. It an emphatic NO! I am not going to hell bc I've been drawn by the Father, redeemed by His Son, sanctified by the HolySpirit, and I can say without hesitation that whether you're a KJVO or not, you are saved if youre a beleiver, and if you live your life in godly manner according to that Holy Truth.
God the Holy Spirit indwells regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and guides them into Biblical truth (orthodoxy and orthopraxy). Because the King James Bible is the pure word of God in their native language, faithful English-speaking saints should not depart from it. There is no objective reason for a Christian not to recognize the King James Bible as the fully reliable final authority in all matters if he (or she) speaks English.
In all candor, zmode82, I think that you ought to consider your question very carefully yourself.
Yes, I am saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.
The preservation of the Scriptures in their entirety by God Himself and Salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE are both sound Biblical doctrines.
That the King James Bible (AV1611) preserves the Holy Scriptures free of errors, omissions, and additions in English is a matter of historical fact.
Oh don't worry I have, that's why I am not intimidated by how a translation can or cannot effect a person walk with Christ. I received thru the Bible, and I never doubted your salvation in the slightest. Its obvious you are a Christioan, so I dont see how it was neccessary for you to let me know.
'Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, [as it is said,] I and my Father are One'
That is the quote I found on the website you gave.
It has all the words and the correct punctuation (a comma) that were changed in your FIRST posting.
I didn't this is what Schaff says, "Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text. He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his third edition (1522) against his better judgment."(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. VII, p. 357)
I think Luther himself makes it ver clear why he didnt add 1 Jn. 5:7. So he says, "The Greek books do not have these words, but this verse seems to have been inserted by the Catholics because of the Arians, yet not aptly; for wherever John speaks about witnesses, he speaks about those on earth, not in heaven"(I already cited this in an earlier post) and it was never added by him until after he passed on.
Luther never translated these words, but commented upon them in his second commentary on this Epistle, although he had pronounced them spurious in his first commentary. They are omitted in all German Wittenberg Bibles from 1522-1545(Karl Braune, The General Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960 reprint), p. 156. Translated from the German by J. Isidor Mombert)
'Luther's version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty of the German language. It is the first German classic,
the others=the ones who follow men and not the lord.I pray for them that think things that are not true and or vallid.
mystic81006 1 month ago
How he knows it's preserved, everything is the real meaning?
I mean everybody knows, bible is subjected to different interpretations by men, who use certain kinds to just take over some weaker ones.
starbreez3 1 year ago
@starbreez3
As joseph941 wrote, "Dont be fooled...[the] KJV is the only version that is from authentic sources that has not been corrupted!"
When--if ever--did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner on your way to hell?
jjpetkusiii 8 months ago
Man defending the kjv is very important many Jews dont believe in Jesus because the Catholics killed a lot of them in the name Of the Lord. Constantine used a corrupt bible which many Jews believe is the same one that we use... How sad it makes me mad though man 99 percent of Jews don't believe in Jesus for the dumbest reasons !!!!! They have been tricked just as so many Americans have. Don't be fooled people he KJV is the only version that is from authentic sources that has not been corrupted !
joseph941000able 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That is why we have to follow the LAST and FINAL Testament(QURAN); which is not changed a bit since more than 1400 years. As a miracle of that book 1 out of 100 Muslim remember that book BY_HEART from A to Z in the 100% same way(no water in which country/language he/she born with), since more 1400 years.
God bless all of us.
PinkyFromPK 1 year ago
Oh, thank you for the CC.
Subtitledworship 1 year ago
Press censorship is a fact of life almost everywhere the Vatican holds sway because only by lying, fraud and deceit can Rome proceed with its ungodly agenda: The Holy Bible (KJV) is the great whore's greatest phobia besides the Son of God Himself.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
Rome's fictions of wafer worship and the "queen of heaven" Co-Redemptress are absent from the Bible.
jjpetkusiii 1 year ago 2
"Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence,... that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of B and Aleph sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 161]
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Dean Burgon wrote:
"But though there are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts [than B or Aleph], yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz., the Peshitto of the second century, the group of Latin Versions.... So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS. upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity. They are eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older than they are." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 74]
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Dean Burgon wrote:
"It will be found in the end that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, Aleph, and D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. [B, Aleph, A, C, and D] places them upon a pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 25]
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Dean Burgon wrote:
"The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, goes step by step in unbroken succession regularly back to the earliest times. . . . No one doubts the coincidence in all essential points of the printed text with the text of the Cursives." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 236
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
The Responsibility of Believers Today
Each individual Christian will make a decision on this matter, of which text is correct. and if he chooses a translation based upon corrupted manuscripts which reflect views which omit the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His virgin birth, then the decision has been made to extend this error to the next generation.
TBS
edwardpf123 2 years ago 10
Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is....
it is important to note that age is relative in the sense that you could have a corrupt 3rd century manuscript or a faithful 10th century manuscript.
TBS
edwardpf123 2 years ago 10
"you could have a corrupt 3rd century or a faithful 10th century manuscript."
By what standard can we verify whether or not the 3rd century manuscript is corrupt or a10th century manuscript is faithful if we cannot rely on an older manuscript to verify the thruth? And, If I see that the versions I read differ from one another, I investigate why, I dont assume that there is this NWO conspiracy behind it all.
zmode82 2 years ago
My standard is the older the better, but yours is the more the better, yet the KJV doesnt agree with most of the Byzantine MS, and its only based on about half a dozen late medieval manuscripts.
zmode82 2 years ago
"Yes that is true, and the Originals came from Antioch, not Alexandria, where most of the heresies originated."
Give me break, are you kidding me? Antioch, Rome, Alexandria each had believers and heretics, just like every other place, so don't give me that cop-out.
zmode82 2 years ago
The reason why most scholars believe the Alex.MSS are good is because theyre older,which means they were copied less. Everyone knows when the originals were written, a copy was made, then a copy of that copy was made, then a copy of the last copy was made, and so on.
zmode82 2 years ago
Errors occurred during this process. The MSS, which came from Alex., go back so far they could have been copied directly from the originals. We dont know that they were, but certainly they were copied less times than the much later MSS used for the TR, from which we get the KJV.
zmode82 2 years ago
But to assert that these scholars dont accept the later Byz. MSS because theyre part of this global elite conspiracy that
wants to deny the deity of Christ, is absurd. Too many good and honorable men of God, read from the modern versions they live godly lives, alot more actually than the most famous KJVO's I know of, so the versions do nothing to hinder God's sovereign rule over mankind.
zmode82 2 years ago
To assert that the modern versions keep people away from beleiving the truth is to deny the sovereignty of God. I know youre not implying this, but in essence, youre saying God is unable to reveal the truth to anyone bc the copyist's errors and modern translations gets in the way. That is the conclusion one must arrive with to understand the nitty-gritty of the ideology circulating the KJVO movement.
zmode82 2 years ago
To assert that "modern versions keep people away from believing the truth" indicates an awareness of objective reality since they all (a) mistranslate Scriptures and (b) rely on corrupt--although old--texts. An old counterfeit does not become a genuine item by virtue of its age: that recognition was also the basis for the work which led to the various TR recensions.
By 1611, Scriptural manuscript evidence sufficed to produce the King James Bible without textual errors, omissions, or additions.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Yet, we got an independent KJVOnlyist baptist preacher, that, aside from burning Bible is a facsist NAZI-like demeanor, preaching the most heretical sermons I've heard,(i.e. you dont need to repent to be saved) he went on TV and admitted that he prayed for Obama to die from brain cancer just like Ted Kennedy. Is that appropiate behavior? He's one of yours, please explain, how relying solely on the KJV has helped that individual?
zmode82 2 years ago
*in a facist NAZI-like demeanor, sorry.
zmode82 2 years ago
I dare to say, zmode82, that you know full well that your most recent posts are nothing but an extended straw man. They have absolutely nothing to do with the sound Biblical doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures in their entirety by God Himself.
You may cavil obsessively, but that endeavor is really pointless. Ultimately, you will not prove any error, omission, or addition in the King James Bible: others have tried in generations past, and all of them have failed sooner or later.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Hey, personally, I hate bringing up people's dirty laundry in the past, just as much as I hate to bring up the Inquisition when I dialogue with Catholics, but when the assertion is made that somehow the mistake of an individual or a group is rooted to the ideology they stand by, well 2 can play at that game. The truth is translations(KJV or other) have nothing to do with influencing any individual, so I dont wanna hear the "corrupt" modern versions "corrupts" people.
zmode82 2 years ago
Referring to the Inquisition, or Calvin's Geneva, or how many times a person has been married, are known as 'poisoning the well'.
The MV do corrupt the hearers since they have gnostic heresies in them and lead people to doubt their Bibles.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Corrupt modern versions lead to corruption of doctrines.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
And what does the KJB have to do with how some applies what he reads?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
People choose the modern versions and thus, they choose to be be deceived, as you are. Some people don't know that the MV are corrupt, but after they learn that they are, they have a CHOICE to reject them. You have made your CHOICE, and God's is not responsible for it-you are.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Never heard that one before. They deny the facts the same reason you do, they don't want any final authority over them.
No 'good and honorable' man advocates the modern versions against the KJB,after learning the facts. He is defending a lie, as you are.
A man might be using a modern version who doen't know the issue, but once one does learn that the modern versions are corrupt (as this video shows) to defend them is to defend a lie.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
The MSS of the TR are as old (if not older) then the Alexanderian text.
'Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early'(Sturtz, The Byzantine Text-Type, p.130)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 10
Comment removed
edwardpf123 2 years ago
Speaking of the Unical 'B' Scrivener wrote
'one marked characteristic of this copy is the great number of it's omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting 'an abbriviated text of the New Testament: ' and certainly he facts he states that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses....2,556 times in all...(Criticism of the New Testament, pg.120)
That is one of the great 'copies' produced in Egypt.
A good copy has to have a good source and a good copier as well.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
The greatest heresies came from Alexanderia. Believers were first called 'Christians' in Antioch.(Acts 11:26)
No originals came from Alexanderia.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text
omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33
omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16
omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12
omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14
TBS
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
By the way, did you know that within a year that Spurgeon began messing around with the RV, using it as the text for Isa.9 he was dead?
Jer 28
15-16 Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD has not sent you; but you make this people to trust in a lie...
this year you shall die, because you have taught rebellion against the LORD. 28:17 So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
....AS SOMETHING INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE OUR PRESENT ENGLISH BIBLE, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT THE PROJECT OF A RIVAL TRANSLATION IS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED FOR A MOMENT. FOR OURSELVES, WE DEPRECATE IT ENTIRELY."
Dean Burgon Society
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
. Burgon's Admiration for the King James Bible Translators. Dean Burgon also wrote: "Verily, those men understood their craft! `There were GIANTS in those days.' . . . the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 196]
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Although Dean Burgon said that there were a few minor places in the Textus Receptus that might be changed, he NEVER said that there was any need for changing the text of the King James Bible. Until his death Dean Burgon was, in a very real sense, what Mr. White calls "King James Only" in that this is the ONLY English Bible that he used and loved.
Dean Burgon Society
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
Dean Burgon Set Forth Three "Test Places" to Test Out His Sound Methods Versus Westcott and Hort's Fallacious and Unsound Methods: (1) "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark" (2) "the Angelic Hymn" of Luke 2:14; and (3) 1 Timothy 3:16.
(Dean Burgon Society)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Dean Burgon was a man who James White called a true scholar 'of the first rank' (The King James Controversy, p.91)
because Burgon believed the TR did need to be revised. But ONLY if the strict critera was met, which the critical text advocates didn't meet. That is the partial truths you get from someone like James White.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Dean Burgon focuses in upon the fourfold basis on which any true or accurate, thorough-going and major revision of the Textus Receptus should take place, (if ever), namely, the judicious and complete use of (1) all copies; (2) all versions; (3) all Church Fathers; and (4) all Lectionaries....
Dean Burgon's method in such revision must be followed thoroughly and completely, or the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible should be left alone.
(Dean Burgon Society)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'He pointed out as well that the Patristic evidence has not by any means attracted "the degree of attention which it deserves." This is still very much true to the shame of so-called "Textual Critics" of today.'
Dean Burgon Society.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
2. Dean Burgon Argued in Favor of Use of "Patristic Testimony as Opposed to Hort's Wanting to Get Rid of it...
The masterful knowledge and use of the Church Fathers' original quotations of Luke 2:14 by Dean Burgon to establish once and for all the veracity of the Textus Receptus at this point
(Dean Burgon Society)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
The earliest Gr. Church Father we have any scriptural evidence from is
Chrysostom (345-407 AD) and he used the Traditional Text. (his works were collected and collated by one of the KJB translators.)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
"The earliest Gr. Chruch Father we have any Scriptural evidence is Chrysostom"
What about Polycarp(70ad 156ad), Ignatius of Antioch(35ad-108), Clement of Rome(1cent- 99or101ad)?
zmode82 2 years ago
"Oh so now you are sating that you don't need the 'Originals' and trust the copies?"
Yes, just like we don't need the 1st original dollar bill to verify whether or not the bill in your wallet isnt a counterfeit. If the copies disagree, we use the oldest manscript we can trace to the 1st century, and you know the TR is not it.
zmode82 2 years ago
The NT has a fragment within one generation from its original, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autographs. Most of the NT is less than 200 years, and the entire N T within 250 years from the date of its completion.The accuracy of the copies is greater for the NT than for other ancient secular books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
zmode82 2 years ago
Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way
zmode82 2 years ago
Dean Burgon was a true scholar of the 1st rank as James White acknowledges.(The KJVOnly Controversy 2nd edit, pg 130) and I most certainly agree, scholarly enough to recognize that the Comma J was a later addition without a valid claim to being original.(The Revision Revised,1883, 483. )
zmode82 2 years ago
However, Edward F Hills makes the most irrefutable arguement ever.
"In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few readings of the Latn. Vulg. not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the GUIDING PROVIDENCE of GOD. In these rare instances GOD CALLED upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-speaking Church."(The KJV Defended, p.213)
Yup, impossible to refute that one.
zmode82 2 years ago
Hey, when the claim is made that God guided, or divinely interferes to make rare occurences like these happen, how can anyone prove of disprove such a claim?
I accept the possiblity of Hill's claim, but I am just not that charismatic to be absolutely sure of it.
zmode82 2 years ago
The translators of the KJB thought God was involved in their work as well.
Funny, how you associate faith with being 'charismatic'
So, how do you KNOW the Bible contains the right amount of Books (66) and that they are all canonical?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Well, imagine having to believe in the Bible! And so how did God preserve all the Books of the Bible? Can you explain it to me? Or do you take it on faith?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
That isn't Hills argument, that is his final appeal. Hills lays out the case for 1Jn.5:9 very clearly and the case is very sound.
You just don't want to believe it, so you don't.
As I said, you have a spirit of strong delusion in you.
So, again, I ask you, which version is your final authority. When the versions disagree among themselves, which one do you choose as being right and why?
That is the James White method, get all the versions and just choose the one YOU BELIEVE is correct.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Hey, you haven't refuted ANYTHING-period!
And so how do you KNOW that Christ died for your sins and was buried and rose again?
Ultmately, everything about being a Christian rests on FAITH.
What the bible critics want you to believe is that they are smarter then the KJB translators-they aren't.
Not even in the same league.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Well, Hills believed it should be there.
And the Burgon believed that the KJB shouldn't be altered,so he would have left it alone, no matter what he believed about it.
'Though he thought there might be some slight revision of the Greek Text, Dean Burgon wanted to keep the English text of the King James Bible intact without a single change! ( Waite,Dean's Burgon Confidence in the King James Bible, pg.18)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Are you sure about those page numbers, in my work, (a second printing) it is dealing with why GOD should be IN 1Tim.3:16, the word that the modern versions leave out.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Are you quoting something? If so, what is it?
Note the word 'most'. Some manuscript variations do make a difference in doctrine, since they lead to different readings, omissions and additions.
If you quoting something, be honest enough to cite it, unless you are afraid I will catch you misquoting again.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Yes that is true, and the originals came from Antioch, not Alexanderia , where most heresies orginated.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Their works are not considered extensive enough to give an adquate understanding of what text they used.
'Supporters of the WH theory point out that Chrysostom... is the earliest Father to use the Byzantine text. However they customarily neglect to mention that there are no earlier Antichian Fathers than Chysostom who literary remains are extensive enough so that their support New Testament quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support'
(Sturtz, p.80)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 7
The objections hence raised against that text are perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favor, which is deducible from the internal evidence and the external testimony of the African Church, which testimony remains to be disposed of before we can consider it spurious.
Frederick Nolan, Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate Or Received Text Of The New Testament, (1815)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
On summing up the arguments which have been urged against the text of the heavenly witnesses, I cannot therefore discover any thing which materially affects the authenticity of this verse, either in the omissions of the Greek manuscripts or the silence of the Greek fathers, in the variations of the Latin version or the allegorical explanations of the Latin polemics.
Cont
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'Now let us divide off...Let those people who do not believe the Bible and who are critical of this and that part of it, go clear over to the other side. Let them stand behind the Devil's guns...Give us the out-and-out opposition of infidelity rather than the work of these hybrid theologians, these mongrel ecclesiastics,....who BELIEVE the Bible, and do NOT believe it. I TAKE UP THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION; I CONSIDER IT TO BE A PERFECT BIBLE (Thomas Talmage-1880)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Ruckman liked Schaff's account of Luther's Bible so much, that he highly recommended it to be read.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'it [Das Newe Testament Deutzch]...was based on the 1519 edition of Erasmus Greek New Testament (which lacked 1Jn.5:7)...(The Reformation of the Bible and The Bible of the Reformation), Jarsolav Pelikan, pg 51
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'He laid the foundation of the Textus Receptus, which was brought into its mature shape by R. Stephen, in his "royal edition" of 1550 (the basis of the English Textus Receptus), and by the Elzevirs in their editions of 1624 and 1633 (the basis of the Continental Textus Receptus), and which maintained the supremacy till Lachmann inaugurated the adoption of an older textual basis (1831).'
Schaff
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stay tuned.....
zmode82 2 years ago
'The basis for the New Testament was the second edition of Erasmus, published at Basel in Switzerland in 1519'
(Schaff)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text. He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his third edition (1522) against his better judgment.'
Not 'slavishly following the Gr. text' doesn't mean that it wasn't followed most of the time. sometimes he used the 'old latin' as did the KJB translators.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
So, you have been caught twice now attempting to distort the clear facts.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
I also acknowledge about 4 mins ago that Erasmus edit was the basis for Luther's text, but he still didn't follow it according to Schaff.
No I didnt I never said he didn't use it, I said, and in fact I was actually quoting what Schaff said.
zmode82 2 years ago
Seriously, all this hooklah is pointless, to tell you the truth. The real issue here is that the KJV is not a perfect translation, maybe in your own little world, but in the real world there is just not enough evidence to support your case.
zmode82 2 years ago
You presented no textual facts to support your misreading of 1John 5:7. Either you have been misled into supposing that someone who is an illiterate in an ancient language (i.e., you in Kioine Greek, zmode82) ought to make corrections of the authoritative expert translators of Scriptural texts, or perhaps you jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. In either case, your failure to perceive the meaning of a Biblical passage in a foreign tongue and to interpret it is your rash mistake.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Logic alone demonstrates that perfect translation is possible, and I could cite languages by the score in which my Text Comments could be TRANSLATED PERFECTLY. (I admit, zmode82, that I could not make the same assertion about yours, however, because they are so nonsensical in so many blatant, convoluted, and specifically peculiar ways.)
The translators of the King James Bible interpreted the Hebrew and Greek of the Old Testament and New Testament flawlessly into exemplary English.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Well, you haven't actually PROVEN an error in the KJB. The evidence is very clear, but you are simply rejecting it so you won't have any final authority over you.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
You denied it at first. And Schaff doesn't say he didn't follow it. Clearly, you have both reading and honesty.
Where did Schaff say that Luther 'didn't folow the Greek of Erasmus?
The Greek edition that Luther used to translate his NT was Erasmus.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'Luther DIDN'T FOLLOW the Greek of Erasmus,"'
Actually, that isn't what Schaff said, he said Luther didn't follow the Erasmus text 'slavishly' but that it was the basis for his NT translation.
So, in your second comment, you misquote Schaff and OMIT a key word.
A common habit you share with your fellow 'Alexanderian's'
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Have you read the very original manuscripts that the Apostles wrote? If not, how do you know the Alexandrian's ommited anything, or the Byzantinians added words that were never there?
zmode82 2 years ago
Now I can admit that maybe my "scholarly" abilities are not on par, but then again I never admitted I was a scholar or at a scholar level. My skills are surely not as impressive as yours, Eddie. You should be very proud, but still judging by the wonderful display by the scholars on the Ankerberg debate vs. the KJVExtremists, do I really need to prove anything at this point?
zmode82 2 years ago
Also,whether Luther "slavishly"(synonymous with "subserviently"meaning serving or acting in a subordinate capacity) I was actually being generous by not adding the wrod, still the evidence is in the fact that Luther never added the CJ himself in any of his translations, and he expressly stated that he considered the words a clumsy insertion fabricated to refute the Arians, as I posted his comment on the CJ earlier.
zmode82 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
By adding the word slavishly or not, it still doesnt add or take away the meaning of what I said earlier, and judging by Luther's comments on the Comma J, I havent the slightest doubt that he didnt even take the Erasmus text seriously at all.
zmode82 2 years ago
Well, then again, now that I think about it, no, I wasnt being that generous by not adding the words "slavishly." Don't mind me, I'm tired, I've been working all night
zmode82 2 years ago
Maybe if you abandon the myths of MMM-onlyism (MultipleModernMISTRANSLATIONS-onlyism) for a steady dose of the Holy Bible as God Himself has preserved it in the Authorized Version (KJV), zmode82, you might eventually develop a sense of history.
The revisionism that you espouse may deceive the simple and unlearned like yourself, but it never fooled God.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
'not slavishly' means Luther didn't follow Erasmus without question. Which is good, since neither did the KJB translator's either. He should have followed the Old Latin in regards to 1Jn.5:7 since the earlier German translations from the Latin, did do so and had it.
'The basis for the New Testament was the second edition of Erasmus'-Schaff
''Basis'3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient
Slavishly-
deliberately imitative; lacking originality: a slavish reproduction
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Ok let me see if I understand your dogma, judgeing by all this obsession you have towards the KJV, are saying that those who love to read the modern translations, even if some of them still reads from the KJV, are not truly saved bc they dont beleive the KJV is the perfect translation?
zmode82 2 years ago
But don't waste your time with me, Eddie boy, I am not at your level, you know? If I am not mistaken, I think James White still has the challenge open for any KJVO to debate with him on this issue, may be you should give him a call, you could go down in history.
zmode82 2 years ago
Gee, all I am asking is that you be honest!
And why should anyone debate James White, his lies in his work on the King James issue have been exposed.
I recomend 'Why Not the King James Bible' an Answer to the King James Only Controversy by James White,
by Dr. Kirk D DiVietro. which was delivered at the Dean Burgon Society,
B.F.T.#2562.
Holland also has a review of White's 'work' and ofcourse Ruckman does as well.
Hey, didn't White back out of a debate with Ruckman?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
"Holland also has a review of White's work and of course Ruckman does as well."
And White has a rebuttal to those claims by thos gentlemen on his website.
Hey, isn't Ruckman pro-choice and an adulterer? I thought those who read from the KJV only live godly lives, not like those scholars who advocate the various translations.
zmode82 2 years ago
Just as you are obviously clueless as to my scientific studies of Darwin's failed hypotheses, zmode82, so you also have no idea about Peter Ruckman's advocacy. There is nothing scholarly in your Text Comments by your own rather frank admission, but that recognition does not seem to inhibit you from an incessant barage of tedious and almost transparent straw men.
You have not proven any assertion of errors, additions or omissions in the King James Bible, ostensibly because you cannot.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Maybe I am clueless to your scientific studies, but judging by your earlier comment you said that kids are being taught in schools that they are apes, and to my knowledge I've been taught that in my school, and I don't recall that the evolutionary theory shows that as well.
zmode82 2 years ago
oops sorry, I meant never been taught that.
zmode82 2 years ago
But i dont want to get into a debate on creation vs evolution. Ive already made a sworn oath never to do that again.
zmode82 2 years ago
Failed theories--like those of Darwin of the revisionists who aligned with Wescott and Hort--proved nothing, but they do "show" their originators' propensity to errors, zmode82. They are very like your Text Comments.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
I never said I agreed with Darwin.
zmode82 2 years ago
With respect to your posts, zmode82, and Ed's replies to them, your talk of extremism is frankly witless. Logically, if anyone represents baseless dogmatism in its clearest expression on these posts, it is you, because the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are still the inspired words of God when they are faithfully interpreted into another tongue (e.g. English) as an axiomatic matter of common sense. Free of errors, omissions, and additions, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures in English.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
Wrong again, zmode82. What is truly pathetic is your failure to recognize that the interpretation of Scripture faithfully and without error, omission or addition into another language retains the validity of the of the original Scriptural text.
As always, logic and common sense are not the basis of "extremism." Bias against interpretation, however, is not sound Biblical doctrine.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Mistaken, jaundiced, idiotic, or frivolous remarks about the AV have arisen in the past, zmode82, and like yours contniue to surface these days, but none of them has ever met its intrinsic onus probandi. Contrary to Scriptures, they typically seek to assert that God Himself has not preserved the Holy Bible, His own inspired words in their entirety.
For the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, flawlessly preserved in the lingua franca of the contemporary world.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Woah! Why are you offended? It was supposed to be a compliment. Even the KJV Translators called God pitiful.
Dont you know what the word "pitiful" means?
I thought you wouldve known. I mean, isnt the English from the KJV the common tongue we use today?
zmode82 2 years ago
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, zmode82.
"Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy" (James 5:11).
"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name" (Jeremiah 32:18).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
See my point? I we read the KJV by the standards of today's english, the KJV translators are guilty of blaspheming bc the common use of the word "pitiful" in today's common english means "pathetic." You don't think God is pathetic do you? God Forbid!
zmode82 2 years ago
The English word "pitiful" retains the meaning expressed in James 5 in its proper context. That any term may be construed variously today is not at all unusual in our language or most others including Hebrew and Koine Greek. Translation (of secular texts) is as much an art as a science, but Scriptural preservation by the Lord God is sound Biblical doctrine.
I do not tamper, therefore, with the TR (properly understood) in Greek, the Masoretic Text in Hebrew, or the King James Bible in English.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
See, how much time you would save by not having to explain all that to someone who isnt familiar with archaic english?
zmode82 2 years ago
The word 'pitiful' isn't archaic english.
1Pe.5:8
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
Context determines meaning.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 4
"Context determines meaning"
Interesting, but you didnt agree with that concerning Is.14:12
zmode82 2 years ago
What is pitiful is the fact that you don't have a dictionary.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 4
"Pitiful" meaning compassionate and merciful of me for not having s dictionary?
Or
"Pitiful" as its pathetic that I dont have a dictionary?
zmode82 2 years ago
There is nothing "archaic" about the King James Bible, zmode82, but it is not a comic book or a punk rockers' chat room either. Ordinary English-speakers of average intelligence have no trouble (intellectually) making sense of what it says--if they are in fact literate in their native tongue.
For years, iIliteracy has been growing in the USA because of a widespread policy--de jure and de facto--of godlessness in the public schools. Nor does teaching kids that they are apes promote erudition.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Teaching kids that they are apes? Although, I dont agree with everything that is being taught in schools concerning evolution, it is very clear you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.
zmode82 2 years ago
Also according to Webster's dictionary, pitiful is archaic:
Date 14th century
3. Archaic. full of pity, COMPASSIONATE
zmode82 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
'ye hath God said'?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
Ok? that doesnt answer my question, so let me make it simple for you.
Yes or no
Are KJVOnlyists the elect, or are they the only ones who are truly saved?
zmode82 2 years ago
That is one of the dumbest questions I ever heard anyone ever ask!
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
Ok, but that still doesnt answer my question.
Simple, yes or no, am I going to hell because I dont beleive the KJV is a perfect translation, despite that I still beleive the same truth translated in that version, as well as others(Jn14:6)?
zmode82 2 years ago
And how do you know Jn.14:6 is true in any version-you don't have the Orignials.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 9
Because of the historical evidence about Jesus Christ.
zmode82 2 years ago
outside the Bible and/or the manuscripts
zmode82 2 years ago
Just answer the question,
Am I going to hell, yes or no?
zmode82 2 years ago
Obviously, potential perdition is of great personal significance to any man or women, zmode, but the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8ff).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
And I agree, however, I am banging my head against the wall(not really)wondering why it took Ed so long to respond to my question with that answer?
zmode82 2 years ago
Some people do not spend every waking moment on their computers, zmode82.
Since 1611, the King James Bible has been the fully reliable final authority for the English-speaking peoples because it is the Holy Scriptures in our common language, but the Internet is not even 30-years-old. Long before the advent of the PC, however, Dean Burgon debunked the myth that any text, which was not Scripture, made its way into the pages of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible (KJV).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
O come on, he didn't waste anytime giving me a response, the 1st time I asked the question.
zmode82 2 years ago
I think you know very well, why he couldn't answer my question.
zmode82 2 years ago
You confuse 'couldn't' with 'wouldn't.
And again, I ask you, how do you know anything in any Bible is correct since you don't have the Originals to consult?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
One reason is the evidence from the quotations of the GREEK Scriptures by the 1st century GREEK fathers. Any one of these types of evidence is enough to confirm the authenticity of the originals. Just about every verse of the NT in GREEK can be recovered from quotes of the NT by the GREEK fathers in their writings predating the earliest copies of the GREEK MSS we have.
zmode82 2 years ago
How do you know the dollar bill you have in your wallet is worth anything if you don't have the 1st original dollar bill ever made?
zmode82 2 years ago
The Scriptures have been preserved, in the that God ordained it, thru the visible evidence we have. However, if the arguement is that God waited 1600 yrs from the 1st centuryAD to preserve His word, by divinely inspiring Erasmus to come up with his last edition of the TR, and the KJV translators to give us the one and only true Bible in English, then that arguement can't be refuted. I mean, how can I prove or disprove that someone received divine revelation?
zmode82 2 years ago
in the *way that God ordained..
zmode82 2 years ago
You are so ignorant of the truth that it is pitiful.
The KJB translators didn't even follow Erasmus that closely, they mostly followed Beza's 5th edtion.
You can prove it by their work, which has no provable errors in it (unlike the modern versions)
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Oh, so now you are saying that you don't need the 'Orginals' and can trust the copies?
And when the copies disagree, what standard do you use to decide which one is correct or in error?
The fact is, you don't want any Bible to be the authority over you, you and the rest of you Bible rejectors want the 'freedom' to reject any scripture you want to.
You are simply spiritual anarchists, and that is why you hate the KJB, because of it's authority.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Regardless of its age, the currency in my wallet is not counterfeit--unlike the corrupt LXX concocted by an Alexandrian heretic zmode82,
Luther, like the other early Reformers, understood in principle that Rome's text (e.g., the Codex Vaticanus) was corrupt. Although his own reading of 1John 5:7 was erroneous, the correct text of the "Comma" was restored to Luther's German Bible in the XVI Century after his death. It agrees with Beza, Erasmus (third edition) and the King James Bible.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Because it is a good copy. How do you know you have a counterfeit? You check it against a real one. The real one is the standard by which all bills are judged.
If it doesn't match it is a counterfiet And the counterfeit bills are destroyed.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Why are you asking me that question, it was you who said that you needed the Originals. So, how do you know anything in the Bible is correct if you don't have the Originals?
The fact is don't care about what the Bible says about anything, you want to pick and choose what you want to believe.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
edwardpf123 2 years ago
The Church Father's did quote the scriptures extensively, but we have nothing before the 4th century on the Gr. Fathers. And the Church Father's strongly support the KJB readings, that is why the Critical text avoids referring to them.
Burgon commented on that. But how would you know this, your textual education is limited to anti-KJB rhetoric.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
By the way, zmode82, "head banging" can sometimes be treated successfully by doctors who are trained in neurology and psychiatry. If such behavior is recurrent or long standing, please consider seeking professional help as soon as possible.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
It was a figure of speech, that shouldve been obvious.
zmode82 2 years ago
When one considers how you wrote in your previous posts, zmode82, the "figure of speech" could just as easily be taken as a "cry for help."
To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth."God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1).
"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" (Psalm 12:6ff).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
manuscripts? the mansuscripts are copies of copies of copies, they aren't Originals.
Nothing outside of the Bible will tell you how to be saved.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
The historical evidence about Jesus Christ is derived from the Bible. And there is nothing in any outside historical record that would lead you to get saved.
So, according to your reasoning, without the Originals we can't know what God really said, so how do you know you are saved?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Well, its obvious you couldn't give me a direct response. So, I'll answer the question for you. It an emphatic NO! I am not going to hell bc I've been drawn by the Father, redeemed by His Son, sanctified by the HolySpirit, and I can say without hesitation that whether you're a KJVO or not, you are saved if youre a beleiver, and if you live your life in godly manner according to that Holy Truth.
zmode82 2 years ago
God the Holy Spirit indwells regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and guides them into Biblical truth (orthodoxy and orthopraxy). Because the King James Bible is the pure word of God in their native language, faithful English-speaking saints should not depart from it. There is no objective reason for a Christian not to recognize the King James Bible as the fully reliable final authority in all matters if he (or she) speaks English.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
So then you are saying those Christians who dont recognize the KJV as the final authority arent realy saved then, am I right?
zmode82 2 years ago
In all candor, zmode82, I think that you ought to consider your question very carefully yourself.
Yes, I am saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.
The preservation of the Scriptures in their entirety by God Himself and Salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE are both sound Biblical doctrines.
That the King James Bible (AV1611) preserves the Holy Scriptures free of errors, omissions, and additions in English is a matter of historical fact.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Oh don't worry I have, that's why I am not intimidated by how a translation can or cannot effect a person walk with Christ. I received thru the Bible, and I never doubted your salvation in the slightest. Its obvious you are a Christioan, so I dont see how it was neccessary for you to let me know.
zmode82 2 years ago
*the truth thru the Bible
zmode82 2 years ago
But you still didnt answer my question?
zmode82 2 years ago
And how do you know of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit-you don't have any Originals.
And I believe there are plenty of Christians who are simply reprobates and false teachers.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
'Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, [as it is said,] I and my Father are One'
That is the quote I found on the website you gave.
It has all the words and the correct punctuation (a comma) that were changed in your FIRST posting.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
Now, why did you lie about Luther not using Erasmus's 2nd edit, when Schaff clearly says he did?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
I didn't this is what Schaff says, "Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text. He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his third edition (1522) against his better judgment."(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. VII, p. 357)
zmode82 2 years ago
Schaff also adds in a footnote,"It first appeared in the Frankfort edition of Luthers Bible, 1574."(Ibid.)
I was right the first time actually, the comma was added in the German Bible after his death.
zmode82 2 years ago
You will note that I say that it a footnote (30) and the fact is that the 'comma' does end up in the Luther Bible.
And Luther followed Erasmus 2nd edition, while Tyndale used his 3rd, which had the comma.
You denied that Luther even used Erasmus in your earlier comment.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
I never said he didnt use it, I said her never followed it Erasmus text.
zmode82 2 years ago
Did Schaff not say that Luther used Erasmus 2nd edition or not?
That was what you claimed was untrue.
You will note the quote that I have from Schaff saying that Erasmus's 2nd edition.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
It was the basis, but again is still says what it says, that he didnt follow Erasmus text.
zmode82 2 years ago
WHY 1 JOHN 5.78 IS IN THE BIBLE
by G. W. and D. E. Anderson
That is from the TBS, not Ruckman.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
I think Luther himself makes it ver clear why he didnt add 1 Jn. 5:7. So he says, "The Greek books do not have these words, but this verse seems to have been inserted by the Catholics because of the Arians, yet not aptly; for wherever John speaks about witnesses, he speaks about those on earth, not in heaven"(I already cited this in an earlier post) and it was never added by him until after he passed on.
zmode82 2 years ago
Luther never translated these words, but commented upon them in his second commentary on this Epistle, although he had pronounced them spurious in his first commentary. They are omitted in all German Wittenberg Bibles from 1522-1545(Karl Braune, The General Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960 reprint), p. 156. Translated from the German by J. Isidor Mombert)
zmode82 2 years ago
Comment removed
zmode82 2 years ago
Again, nice misdirection. No one claimed that Luther used 1Jn.5:9. The claim was that Luther used Erasmus 2nd edition which didn't have the verse.
The verse did eventually make it into the Luther Bible.
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
And Luther used Erasmus 2nd edit-didn't he?
edwardpf123 2 years ago 8
This is exactly what I said:
"Really? I wonder where you get your sources...Luther DIDN'T FOLLOW the Greek of Erasmus,"
zmode82 2 years ago
'Luther's version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty of the German language. It is the first German classic,