Antioch vs. Alexandria by Dr. Sam Gipp

[cbbcyouthablaze]

13 people dont know what they are talking about.

[TheDogfight55]

If Egypt is a place God doesn't even want us to go get horses, explain this scripture? Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child (Jesus) and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:?

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Because the OT scripture prophesied that Jesus would be called out of Egypt, which is exactly what happened. The spiritual application paints a picture: The sin nature of man is obtained from Adam the earthly or earthy man. We receive our sin nature by heredity. Egypt is a type of the "world" so Christ being called out of egypt signifies that like as Adam condemned us here, likewise Christ manifest himself as a man (earthly), faced the same temptations as man, and delivered us.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 Ok. I already knew all that but that doesn't make the case that Egypt couldn't have the word of God perserved in it, in fact just the opposite. How is it that God wouldn't store anything there? Doesn't it rather make the case that God could have sent his inspired word into it (WORD made flesh) and then bring it out again (uncorrupt)just as he has done before. I'm against the arguement God couldn't have preserved his word in Egypt based on the whole "horse" statement.

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Understood, I too am against the idea that God could not preserve his word by use of a town in Egypt. I was merely answering the question you proposed. He could use PEOPLE in England certainly He could use a Christian in Egypt. Its not a matter of what God will or wont do, but what He actually did. What he did was to use the church at Antioch as a hub, a central gentile church (Acts 11). Its a matter of history and result, not a matter of how God dealt with Egypt in the past.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 I think we are agreeing, if you are saying Gipp's arguement that the alexandrian text is corrupt because it came out of Egypt doesn't fly. I'm not arguing pro-con on the manuscripts just that particular point he made. Acts 18:24 seems to make my point.

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Thats right. God, can use anyone from anywhere to do anything; provided there is willingness and dedication. Im not mad at Bro. Gipp, and I agree that the right text came from Antioch. I do not think God's refusal of horses negated Alexandria, but God's will for his word did. My response to your comment was only to explain the idea why Christ was called out, but horses refused. See Acts 18:26 as well, Alexandria is subpar in doctrine in apostolic times. Antioch is the hub, not Al.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 Never said anyone was mad @ Gipp so don't know where that came from. Your quote "I do not think God's refusal of horses negated Alexandria, but God's will for his word did", what scripture are you backing this with? Apollos wasn't reprogramed having a false Gospel he was just incomplete, he hadn't had the revelation of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost yet. The Bible states that he was instructed in the way of the Lord not he had a false version of scripture.

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Didnt say you said i was mad at Bro. Gipp, just clarifying. You dont need scripture to see what happened in history. Subpar means incomplete. Bottom line is that the scripure tells us the foundational churches from which our heritage sprang. Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. God's will for his word is evident, he did not have to tell us that it would come through Antioch, it just did. Acts recorded it, so I didnt really want to fuss with you, I just answered your rhetorical question.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 lol...hang your hat on things outside the scripture I choose not to....no fuss :)

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 One line of Bibles emphasize the deity of Christ and the blood of Christ (Antioch), the other takes away from those doctrines (Alexandria). The scripture shows that Antioch (Acts 11-16) was the central gentile church.I can see the history and the fruit of both texts. I dont see the scripture your hat is hanging on. How about one scripture that insinuates Alexandria is the right line. Make a case. I show the Bible recognition of Antioch, read the chapters! Antioch is the place!

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 Is that what Gipp says? Show me where the deity of Christ is taken away by this other line and what are you gonna do if I show you where it actually boost the doctrine over the Antioch text? If your calm enough add the Blood scriptures as well. I don't have to provide a scripture reference for Alexandria because I'm not knocking either but you are, so back it up with the God breathed word of God. Jesus went into Egypt and came out unpolluted...people can tell your stretching!!

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 You are funny. first you said you wasnt for either, but you are dead set against anything said FOR the church of Antioch which is in the bible clearly. I have given you example after example and you have only told me about one guy who came out of Alexandria and had to be brought up to date PROVING that in the apostolic days Alexandria was not well indoctrinated. You clearly are only here to argue, so lay out what you have and let us see. I stretch? Then disprove what has been said

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 if you read were I wasn't for either then that explains your ability to grasp what was actually written by me in fact in my previous reply I stated I could use the other line to "boost" the diety of Christ over the AV, to which you could not offer the scripture...in an early reply I stated I wasn't pro-con on either so your conclusion about my not being for either is sadly wrong. Apollos was incomplete because he hadn't had the message of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, wow, easy!

[TheDogfight55]

@TheDogfight55 in fact I have no problem with either I use both as a study guide. This all started because I defered with Gipp's use of the "horses" analogy totally ignoring the fact that God used it for a shelter for his son and brought him out with no problem! You say God can do what he wants and then say he can't, not me!

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 HELLO that was my point, your saying guy came out of Alexandria who was mighty in word and Im using the next verses to show you that what he learned in Alexandria was 24 years out of date concerning the revelation. YOU ARE RIGHT he does not have the message, AND HE WAS FROM ALEXANDRIA. Did the message ever get there? SURE, but Antioch HAD THE MESSAGE FIRST, and so did Ephesus. Again, your right, wow, its super easy! I just dont understand how you cant see what YOU ARE SAYING.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 Hold on there wild man, I know I'm right! You are taking great liberty with the word "incomplete" as being outdate! Apollos like those whom Paul encountered in Acts 19 were behind only in the "Baptism of the H.G."....Paul didn't rebuke what they already knew, he just prayed they receive the H.G. and they prophesied! Apollos was skilled in the word but had not the revelation of the H.G. yet, that doesn't mean what he had was wrong before, c'mon!

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Acts 18:25 ...KNOWING ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN... These verses dont even say one word about his knowledge of the Holy Ghost. Your connection to Acts 19 is pure assumption, or as Peter says, "private interpretation." The bible says that all he knew was the Baptism of John, which refers to Johns statement to be baptized and bring forth fruit meet for repentance. The baptism of John was outdated. He only know the Bapt. of John because thats all Alexandria knew evidently.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 1.Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

[TheDogfight55]

@TheDogfight55 "mighty in scriptures".."instructed in the way of the Lord"..You think he ONLY knew about John's Baptism before the crash course of Aquila and Priscilla? I'm assuming because in Chpt.19 Paul runs into some just like Apollos and addresses the need of the Baptism NOT attacking what they knew but "more perfectly" complete! With all the assumptions you hang on I believe this not hard to assume.....no more replies...good day :)

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 "KNOWING ONLY" "KNOWING ONLY" How is it that you claim to understand all these manuscript issues, and claim to be able to interpret the baptism of the Holy Ghost into Acts 18:24-26 when it is NOT there, but you are not able to understand the plain english words that he ONLY KNEW the baptist of John? I think you dont care that it says that! I begin to think YOU are the final authority in what you believe.

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 Look at the last phrase in verse 25. Knowing only...knowing only...you even replied right below this and said..."you think he ONLY knew about John's baptism before the crash course.." Of course I think that, THAT IS WHAT THE VERSE SAYS.

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 As to your request for verses, I repeat, YOU give some verses, you give some ideas from the scripture. So far you have only disagreed. Im beginning to think you havent looked at both sides of the issue. Im sorry but 480 characters is not enough to give you a class on manuscript evidence. Especially when you cant see that Apollos "old" doctrine was because Alexandrian was behind on their teaching and therefore are not the OLDEST authorities. He was behind BECAUSE he was from Egypt.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 I hear deflection, avoidance, excuses.....not a worthy debate. I'm glad I trust the T.R. based on fact, not on whether God wants us to take a horse from Egypt or not! You don't 480 characters to show scripture on where the new translations are in error.....c'mon Brother..see through the superficial and find the supernatural!

[mastersman1]

@TheDogfight55 & how could Jesus be polluted? Christ was without sin, and the Lord of all, and above all. Man nor place could pollute him. You are back to the first question you asked which I answered. You said you understood my answer already. So, My only real question I would like you to answer is: Where is your God breathed bible, Name it! If you say originals, then I will give you a billion dollars for it. I believe the God breathed word is the AV. It came from an actual biblical church.

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 I'M NOT SAYING HE WAS!! If Gipp can throw out the whole "horses" as some kind of gotcha statement then a response is forthcoming. He does not help the Antioch theory by using the "horse" statement. That is all I'm saying, period! We can disagree about Apollos but the "horse" analogy, c'mon!

[TheDogfight55]

@mastersman1 My God breathed Bible is right here, why? Send the check! Are you saying "you" have the originals? The problem Gippers have is they could have a wonderful arguement if done properly but when you jump to "I have God's word and you don't because I believe it" that isn't debate but cultish. You failed to deliver any scripture for the discussion even from your version, thus, I am the winner here...because "I believe it"....send the billion dollars to "Feed the Children" ministries.

[kvc4791]

12 people resent final authority.

[Chas4Jesus]

I have noticed that in some "Christian History" books, they teach that the Scriptures came from Alexandria....immediate tip off of their agenda.

[356226]

Antioch is two places one in asia minor and the other in syria Selecus a general of Aleksandar the great Macedonians not greek Alexandria was burned by pagan romans because they dislike christians

[Qorlaq]

This is a ridiculous argument. It does not follow that the manuscripts and fragments from Alexandria are corrupt because Egypt is bad in the Bible. I can't believe this took an hour and a half.

[BereanBeacon1]

@Qorlaq You are in the majority.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19

[Qorlaq]

@BereanBeacon1 I know the verse but I don't think I'm getting how this applies to the Alexandrian papyri. For the sake of discussion, I'm not even claiming that the Alexandrian text is trustworthy, but what does the role of Egypt in the Bible have to do with whether these manuscripts and fragments are orthodox or heretical? Have there never been true Christians with orthodox Scripture in or around Alexandria? Were there never heretics in Antioch? I just think this is a fallacious argument.

[mastersman1]

@Qorlaq Your reasoning makes good sense. But I think maybe you should reason it out a step further. There could be heresy in Antioch, and devout ones in Alexandria as you say. That is not really the issue. The bible resulting from Antioch is stronger in many places regarding doctrines held by orthodox Christians. The doctrines have to do with the deity of Christ, the importance of the blood of Christ etc. Its as much a matter of where the texts went, as where they originated. tree by the fruit.

[TheDogfight55]

@Qorlaq I agree!!! In fact, Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John..

[samuelamos1]

@Qorlaq  In the 1st,2nd, &3rd centuries Alexandria was the hub of all that was heretical Christianity. It was a center for pagan learning and manuscripts copied in this city are known to have been tampered with. These manuscripts fell out of favor with Christians and today make up less than 5% of extant mss. Modern translations are derived from 2-3 Alexandrian mss that do not agree w/ the majority of texts and do not even agree w/ each other. God has magnified His word above all His name Ps138:2

[samuelamos1]

@Qorlaq In the 1st,2nd, &3rd centuries Alexandria was the hub of all that was heretical Christianity. It was a center for pagan learning and manuscripts copied in this city are known to have been tampered with. These manuscripts fell out of favor with Christians and today make up less than 5% of extant mss. Modern translations are derived from 2-3 Alexandrian mss that do not agree w/ the majority of texts and do not even agree w/ each other. God has magnified His word above all His name Ps138:2

[gilgalbiblewheel]

Also Egypt had it's good points in the Bible such as Pharaoh's fear of God in Genesis 20, Pharaoh's honoring Joseph in Genesis 41, Egypt was a place of refuge for Jeroboam in 1Kings 11 and others as well as Jesus in Matthew 2.

[nataustin4]

@gilgalbiblewheel Also Joseph told his brothers that when they sold him into Egypt, they (his brothers) had meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.

[mastersman1]

@gilgalbiblewheel All these are types or pictures of the church in the world. The bible says when a mans ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7. You have hit on a great bible study. God bless it to your heart.

[gilgalbiblewheel]

Alexandria was known for it's great library under the Ptolemaic Dynasty.

It was destroyed several times due to it's occult literature.

But to my knowledge the New Testament sitings from the Old were from the Septuagint and NOT the Masoretic Text. Does that mean the Apostle Paul or other NT writers did wrong?

We shouldn't look at the Septuagint as an intentionally faulty translation of the OT to Greek. The Hellenized Jews found the translation useful as the English world with the KJV today.

[mastersman1]

@gilgalbiblewheel Whoever told you the septuagint existed in old testament times lied to you. Try to prove that it did and you will see that it did not exist. There is no proof it ever existed until much later than scolars claim. Do the study!

[mishakol129]

When the Roman Catholic Church apostasized from the Ancient Church (Eastern Orthodox Church), that's when Martin Luther created the Christian Tower of Babel.

And now we have the "Confusion of Tongues" with over 41,000 different denominations...What a shame...

If only Rome would never have established their Apostate / Power-hungry empire and Luther trying to become the new Pope, this would never have happened.

The only Christian Language is the Tongue the Ancient Eastern Orthodox Church.

[jamesglory1]

Great teaching from Dr Gipp..

[quantafunk]

moses was an egyptian priest! Jesus and his mother fled to egypt and lived there for several years. egypt is the place were all religion comes from. The white man wants a white God and that is why you cant deal with egypt (Africa). Barbarian...

[HuntThaDrag0nPRMS0]

@quantafunk you are so ignorant. this has nothing to do with that... it has to do with defending the KJB

[mastersman1]

@quantafunk weird. racist. 

[DavidKn0wledge]

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.:KJV

psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.:KJV

Thomas Nelson Publishers had to make substantial changes to the text of the King James Bible to obtain a copyright. They accomplished this by using multi-syllabic words and more complex phrases to replace the simple words and phrasing found in the King James Bible.w w w (dot) libertytothecaptives (dot) net

[wjm7259]

with the holy spirit , the proper interpreter. kjv is a modern bible 1611, the vulgate is Gods original OT & NT and has all the correct books 73 total

[curvalecce]

The Vulgate Bible was established for centuries before the KJV appeared. Tyndale's NT appeared in 1534, based closely on the TR, and helped form Coverdale's Bible of 1535. The Geneva Bible, based on the TR and the same Hebrew texts as the KJV, appeared in 1587.

What all this amounts to is that the 1611 KJV was a NEW text, an IMPROVED version of already existing Bibles. It was printed to get away from the openly Reformed emphasis of the Geneva Bible. Gipp doesn't mention that.

[robsnyder1]

Charity means love in action, the Bible has "love" in several other places and God preserved this place as charity in english ... We are to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" Matt 4:4 and the new versions are missing 3,000 words in the four gospels alone. The Bible says every word of God is pure Pr 30:5. you can get the gospel from a new version... its not all missing but its a flawed foundation, you either have an infallible Bible (KJV) or you don't.

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

If you don't have a King James Bible, you don't HAVE a Bible.

[nathanjonessr]

This guy is a sophist, speaking to a choir of even dumber people. Fortunately the Grace of God is sufficient to save even the especially dense who think they are really smart.

His gift logic is about the worst logic ever. And apparently I've missed something but how is it that modern translations are from alexandria? Not to mention this guy has no concept of the uses of language, apparently they didn't cover that in his correspondence course doctorate. And what a crass and cheap sense of humour

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

The KJV is based on the received text which is based on the majority of all Bible supporting Greek manuscripts {95%} of about 5,200 pieces and the mass-erotic Hebrew text which is different than the new bibles which are based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrenus which are totally tampered with and messed with and changed and corrected many times. One was found in the popes library another was found in the garbage can in a monastery which were the Egyptian Alexandrian type. Worthless

[nathanjonessr]

The library in Alexandria was Greek. Built by Alexander the Great. All the reasoning that this guy has said is full of non-sequitors and fallacious assumptions.

I like the KJV, it is a very accurate translation, it is the word of God, but 17th century English is different, the words do not mean the same thing today. Today "charity" does NOT mean "love". Even in 1611, "charity" was only synonymous with love because charity was an integral part of love. Bottom line: the word is not accurate.

[bbbfohio]

That is exactly why the new translations are so bad. The correct word in 1 Corinthians is "charity". When replaced by "love", it is watered-down and inaccurate.

The greater point is that ALL new versions are based on corrupt manuscripts. You can't get a good translation from bad manuscripts. And the basis of all new texts and translations is Vaticanus--the Pope's bible.

We have documented this in our videos, "Why KJV Only?"

[nathanjonessr]

why? why is the correct word charity? In the context of 1 Cor. Paul is talking about "love" not charity. Do you say to your wife "I charity you", do you say to God "I charity you", Do you say to your brother "I charity you"? It is not "love" that is watered down and inaccurate, it is "charity" that is watered down and inaccurate. and a few verses later "fails" is wrong to, it should be "ends", we do not use the word fail to mean stop or end, and that is what the verse means "love never ENDS"

[nathanjonessr]

You have no understanding of the reformation, or the principle of private interpretation. You criticize the idea of a Pope, but you accept Papal-like statements from various guys like this one.

[nathanjonessr]

Do an etymology search on the word "charity". At least look up the definition. You will see clearly.

I use a modern translation when speaking for one simple reason: I don't have to take a minute to translate the 1611 English to 2010 English. A minute not spent translating "charity" to "love" and "thou" to "you" is a minute more to preach the Gospel.

But still sometimes the beauty and symmetry of the KJV is unmatchable and I use it. I'm not selling a Bible, I'm preaching the Truth.

[jamesglory1]

Once again dr gipp, produces an exellent arguement for the KJV.

Praise God!

I recommend this video to all who wonder about which bible translation to use.

There are more videos on this subject and more on my YouTube channel.

Hallelluia! Praise Jesus the Living Word made flesh! Amen

[koldkase77]

I study the NLT study bible, and if something is taken out or added, it shows this to me. So why not read it, and try to understand just why something was placed in or taken out? To me, that is the best way to learn. It would be like teaching math without knowing all the numbers. What is 2 plus 2? Uhm, not sure, if I had all the numbers I could tell you. Let's put 2 and 2 together here and quit criticizing one another for which bible they read and start seeking God in the bible we choose.

[blastingcaps]

Thats the whole problem with the major religions though isnt it? Asking one to concede to another even one word is the whole reason that all the fighting occurs.

So what you are asking people to do is really exactly what has been happening. So you shall be ignored. Not that you are wrong...but just that your suggestion misses the whole point of the argument.

[koldkase77]

Okay, you obviously have no clue what i am saying so YOU my friend will be ignored, so don't bother replying back!

[jakedevon]

If the KJV is not the Word of God, then what is the final authority?

[blastingcaps]

Most people would say that ones own self is the final authority.

Even if you choose the god you have...you still have made that authoritative judgment for yerself. So you are.

Are you not?

[jakedevon]

"Most people would say that ones own self is the final authority."

I can't imagine that.

Try that in a court of law: 'Judge, I am the final authority. You'll listen to me.'

Lol!

[blastingcaps]

Thats my point you fucking idiot!

"courts" are not god!

You dont get even the basics of spirit.

[jakedevon]

You said: "Most people would say that ones own self is the final authority."

I disagreed with you by pointing out the court example. If what you said is true, then why don't people tell the judge that he should listen to them?

Are you still saying that everyone thinks that they are the final authority?

By the way, I did not call you any names.

[wjm7259]

@jakedevon the church & the pope

[jakedevon]

@wjm7259

You're saying that the Catholics consider the pope above the Word of God?

[gastonlv]

Haha...he also told them to leave Egypt!

[tallswede68]

What's your point?

[murphyclm]

I'm grateful for Sam Gipp's common sense/ right teaching that helps me explain to others why it's so necessary to have a final authority and the right bible version. Thank God for the King James bible. Thanks so much for posting this.

[alfteck]

Interesting topic....too much sermonizing.

AL

[Secretknowledge75]

King James Bible is the best english translation we have. The NIV is too much paraphasing. The NASB deletes too many words. Ill stick with the KJV. If we keep coming out with new versions,we will be going around in circles. Just like with Greek students they cant seem to agree on meanings of some Greek phrases. I dont know about you but I dont have that kind of time. The KJV is the most straight forward and clear. The other versions dont agree with one another or with the KJV. Bouncing around.

[jakedevon]

Well put. Either we have the Word of God or we don't.

[cyberwlf00]

Sam Gipp knows his Bible!! Thank you for all the blessings you share.. God Bless you!

Your friends in Montana

[theoriginaljonnyox]

Psalms 12:6,7

[takealongline]

King James-Only is not a Biblical doctrine. It is a doctrine of men, therefore a false doctrine.

[tallswede68]

Not all doctrines of men are false doctrines.

But some are, which is why Sam Gipp shows that the Bible supports the AV.

[cbat36]

this message from Gipp is classic thank you so much for putting it on video and on the internet.

[dhang13957]

Since ive been married ang lived here in Japan,i never been able to join KJV1611 Bible conference or seminar in the Philippines where i came from.i am grateful for this wonderful opportunity to see this kind of study in video from the KJV Bible contenders in America.Once again,Thank you so much for posting it here in the net.

[dhang13957]

Thank you so much!this video is really a blessing to me..God bless you!