@toobfunnybunny Indeed. It is extremely overdue. However, I do wish Albert would continue this series. While he may consider it as "shooting fish in a barrel" he should be aware just how many individuals place trust in Riplinger's thesis.
The Bible warns us about people like you who will call evil good. Only the Lord gives understanding to His word so I am not surprised you don't understand. Its not certain how much they paid you for this job here but believe me, its not worth it considering the Judgement that will rain down from above on the Day of The Lord.
@brainouty ...I was just being funny, it's Alberts video. I am KJVO, more so now, than when we last spoke. It took me afew months to get through Gails book "Hazardous Materials" but well worth the read....you should read that one.
@vachief No thank you. The woman is crazier than her own lies. I already proved you and her wacko in our first encounter, and left your bleeding torso absent arms and legs. No matter what anyone proves against you, you keep on claiming to be sane. Everyone else, knows better. BYE.
Sigh, for a moment there I thought you'd recovered. Guess not.
@brainouty ...For some reason I remember it was you, who ended up face down in the mud, just like history, an awfull lot depends on who does the writting.
@vachief Having read Gail Riplinger's book it should be easy to understand that Albert's videos successfully debunked her claims, particularly as it pertains to the conspiracy angle of her thesis.
@vachief Read this carefully. I'll only type it once. You are under Divine Discipline for trying to destroy the Word of God, 2Tim2:26-3:7, Phili3:18-19, end Rev 22. The writ against you reads as follows:
1. Since the KJVO adamantly refuse to admit that the LXX was written by Jews under one of the Ptolemies, even though we have EXTRA-BIBLICAL proof of the Greek's AGE, the KJVO are guilty of Anti-Semitism and denying Scripture, because (cont.)
2. The LXX is almost exclusively quoted in the New Testament by Christ and all authors. Therefore the KJVO are claiming the NT is not inspired, either. So again the KJVO are guilty of denying Scripture and of anti-semitism, because JEWS wrote the NT and in GREEK.
The script of your discipline for trying to destroy Scripture is awesome. I wouldn't want to be in your place for all the tea in China.
@brainouty ..Even Jerome knew the LXX was the work of Origen, produced around 200 AD or so. More Vatican spin to support the apocrypha. Here's how it works...if the LXX contains the apocrypha, and Jesus read from the LXX, than that makes the apocrypha inspired. How convenient. You can always count on the pope, for a great sales pitch. lol
@vachief STUPID, I have posted the links of Jerome's letters where he chides Augustine for NOT READING the JEWISH LXX, and Augustine replied that he would, and then didn't. In short, the Origen LXX was protested BY Jerome as being INFERIOR to the Jewish LXX which Augustine had.
Dummy.
Honestly, you KJVO never even lift a finger to study. All you do is gossip doo-doo anyone can prove a lie in five minutes (or a 10-minute labarum video).
@brainouty ...I'm just a dumb cop , not a scholar of reknown like yourself. I do know that a fish rots from the head down, all ya gotta do is look for a head with a fish on top. If the fish is wearing a pair of red shoes, it's a dead giveaway. Maybe the'll burn me, chop me up, and throw my bones in the river....irregardless..."We shall not be moved." LXX= Alexandrian philosophy. Just ask a Jew. lol
...Gail has done a great job exposing the occult based backgound of some of these so called "scholars" not to mention thier pedophile leanings. Gail was reading classical literature as a child, was teaching English to Greek immigrants at 18, now in her 60s there are few people as qualified as she to speak about these issues. This has more to do with Catholicism vs Protestantism.
@Mechanized0 ..If you read her books you might change your mind....she is miles ahead of labaraum. It's important to labaraum to pooh-pooh the work of the counter-reformation as a crazy conspiracy theory. If your a Catholic I can understand your position. Incedently Hal Lindseys work is actually a product of Rome, even though labaraum fails to mention that.
@vachief I have read New Age Bible Versions. Having been raised a fundamentalist Baptist I was exposed to 'conspiracy theology' on a daily basis for 20 years. Jack Chick and Gail Riplinger were the primary emphasis. My own historical research exposes a great many of the misconceptions or outright deceptions Jack Chick and those of his ilk promote.
@Mechanized0 ...I would'nt put Jack Chick in the same catagory as Gail Riplinger. Is there of conspiracy? Absolutely! The Biblical story revolves around a Satanic conspiracy to suppress the truth and lead people astray. You can't be a biblical Christian without believing that . It was Paul who first said..."beware the scribes."
@vachief Acknowledging Satan's existence and his goals does not necessarily prove the validity of Gail Rilpinger's claims. In fact, the term "conspiracy theology" is not applicable to the discussion of Satan's actions, but rather denies the paranoia that fundamentalism breeds, where one observes a conspiracy behind every bush and tree.
@Mechanized0 ....Then why do suppose that Paul said..."Beware the scribes." Do you think he was just being paranoid or perhaps he was aware that people would try and corrupt Christianity? Jesus was a hated man...don't forget that.
@vachief Actually I believe that was Mark and Luke in their Gospels and it was Jesus speaking. The reason was false pride in wanting the best seats at the feasts, etc. and had nothing to do with textual transmission (Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46).
@labarum312 ...C'mon Albert........"scribes"? There are over 50 references to scribes in the New Testament. Scribes write things ...that's what they do.
@vachief I would seriously suggest you take all the quotes by those who she condemns that appear in her book and look at her footnotes. Note how she continually strings together things from hundreds of pages apart as though they have soemething to do with each other. Then go and check the originals - many are online. You will find the quotes are just random phrases that have nothing to do with what she asserts.
@labarum312 Agreed. Simply pulling out a verse in isolation ("beware the scribes") does not automatically bring credence to Riplinger's claims. One should investigate her claims as you have labarum. Linking quotes dozens or even hundreds of pages apart then splicing them together is a completely arbitrary act. I would encourage you to please continue your expose of Riplinger's book in the series you began some time back.
@Mechanized0 ...I agree with you. Either she's telling the truth or she is lieing for some reason. After 3 years on this issue I'm inclined to believe that she is indeed correct about the intentional corruption of manuscripts used to construct Bibles. She presents to much evidence to be ignored as the work of a kook. James White challenged her....and now he has barricaded himself...interesting.
@boan000 ...Yeah....He does think he's a genuis, to bad he no longer allows comments on his channels. Unlike him, I've actually read a couple of her books. I would love for James White is explain in precise detail the reason the NIV contains 60,000 less words than the KJV.
@labarum312 ...I'm right in the middle of her 2nd book "Hazardous Materials" quite fascinating...who would have thought. lol Once you really start digging, it opens up a whole new world of understanding about the different bibles. If Riplinger was all by herself it would be a little hard to believe, but that is not the case at all. She has made this her lifes work....and there is a lot to it.
@vachief I would like to speak to you on the issue but the limits of comments on Youtube makes it difficult. If you would like to get together on Stickam sometime or some other way where we can go over NABV in detail I would be more than happy to do so.
@labarum312 ...Sounds good to me....this is a fairly complicated study, although understandable by the average Joe. I was born an Episcopalian so at first I thought all this KJV onlyist stuff was just an extention of the lunitic fringe. lol I've since changed my mind. I do know this....grievous is a better term to describe evil people rather than prosperous. PM me and we'll go over it.
@vachief Gail Riplinger is a fruitcake who knowingly misrepresents what other people have written and said and has absolutely no understanding of New Testament textual criticism whatsoever. Try checking her claims to see if they actually stand up under the light of genuine scrutiny instead of swallowing her putrid mendacity whole as if it were the gospels themselves.
@vachief I have studied and compared Bible translations on and off for 20 years and spent two years studying New Testament textual criticism. With the benefit of the online resources available to you today, if in 3 years you can't find any problems with her material, I have no hesitation in saying you either aren't exaclty the sharpest tool in the shed, or your "looking over her work" hasn't been terribly exhaustive at all.
@Keruaran ..Here is a question for you then...is a KJV bible the word of God? If so ...is an NIV Bible with 60,000 less words also a Holy Bible? And seeing your a textual critic... which Greek New Testament are you refering to?
"NIV Bible with 60,000 less words also a Holy Bible?"
I am not a NIV fan. But problems with the NIV are not to do with a word count in comparison to a formal translation in 16th century English. The NIV is too interpretive and makes some arbitrary choices in the rendering of some phrases and passages I don't agree with. That said, it does render some passages better than the KJV.
Do you mean NT texts? I generally favor the eclecticism of the NA27.
@Keruaran ..Do you think it possible that a translater could render a meaning of a word that is the exact opposite from what the KJV says? The real truth is that the set of manuscripts used to created an NIV are not the same ones as the KJV. There are basicly 2 sets of manuscripts,the southern stream (Alexandrian) favored by Rome/ Orthodoxy and the northern stream, Protestant.
@vachief This is just absurdity. The Byzantine stream that gives the majority text IS THE TEXT OF ORTHODOXY!! That is why it is called BYZANTINE!! It happens the Textus Receptus is a particularly corrupted form of the Byzantine text. Nor was the Latin Vulgate representative of anything close to the Alexandrian readings. It might help to expand your reading choices beyond KJV Only propaganda - most of what you find in Riplinger, Ruckman, et al is complete and utter nonsense.
@labarum312 ..Your a smart guy Albert, but like me, you are not privy to all there is to know on this issue. Eastern Orthodoxy is perhaps the most corruped form of Christianity, a close 2nd to Rome. If you don't think corrupted manuscripts have something to do with that, I don't know what else to say. Example... Greeks omit Acts 8:37 from thier manuscripts to support thier view of infant baptism.
@vachief Excuse me but everyone involved in the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza) and the KJV translators also believed in infant baptism. They were Catholics, Calvinists, and Anglicans. In fact, given they were largely clergy, they likely baptized infants regularly. Check out my video "What the KJV translators really believed".
@labarum312 ...I'm convinced the books (Manuscipts) have been "cooked". I also think that Westcott & Hort were doing a little backburner action as well. Maybe you think Oswald killed Kennedy or there really are WMDs in Iraq, or perhaps Ana Nicole married for love. I'm convinced there is a movement to unite Christianity under one head and I will have none of it. Time will tell who is right about this.
@vachief All the manuscripts are available to be examined. We have thousands of them from various centuries and they have been documented and confirmed numerous times. There have been numerous critical editions published - including by those who support the Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont). There really is no doubt what is out there. We know the TR was based on half a dozen later mss of questionable quality that had been altered to conform with some Latin readings.
@vachief The KJV is a translation. The argument that its textual basis is stronger or more valid than translations like the NASB is false. A a translation it is not a standard upon which it is appropriate to measure the fidelity of other translations to the earliest and best manuscript texts we have available to us today.
@Keruaran ..You wrong buddy, when it comes to the so-called "earlier and best" manuscripts, earlier does not nessesarily mean better. Even if you don't come to the same conclusions as GR, you should read a few of her books for an education in bible production. The KJV and the NASB and the manuscripts that underscore them, are completely different books, and there is no doubt about that.
@vachief If offered a text around 300 years from the lives of the Apostles and one from a thousand years later, I will take the former. Absent compelling evidence giving more weight to late texts, the earlier is always to be preferred. The texts that underscore the KJV and the NASB are not "completely different", that is pure folly. The day I seek an education on textual criticism from the likes of Gail Riplinger will be the day I start buying miracle spring water from Peter Popoff as well.
@Keruaran ...I have found dozens of examples were the New Bibles say exactly opposite from the KJV. Why is that? That's how I got started in this business. If your satisfied with were you are now...that's Ok with me. This whole thing has "legs" if you ask me. I agree with you about TV preachers...90% of them are in it for the money. Do you think 70 scholars wrote the Septuigent, or did Origen write it?
@vachief I see you are buying into Ruckman's nonsense. The legend of the rabbis all translating the same way is certainly legendary but the Septuagint is not. Just as the KJV Onlyist claims of 5000 manuscripts all supporting KJV readings is complete and utter nonsense. Philo and Josephus both mention the Septuagint and there were fragments of it found in Qumran in the first century. In fact one of the Hebrew scrolls of Jeremiah matches the Sept rather rhan the Masoretic text.
@labarum312 ..KJV Onlyists don't claim that the over 5000 extant manuscripts support the KJV...and they never did. I would expect some level of intellectual honesty here. You and I both know that Protestantism and Rome/Orthodoxy support a different set of manusripts. As an Anglican whose side are you on?
@vachief Do I need to point you to the Kent Hovind video where he says just that? As an Anglican I fully support the KJV as a legitimate translation of the Bible. But KJV Onlyism is something that would have been rejected by the KJV translators - most of whom were Anglican. I would suggest you google the preface of the KJV where they place their work in a long line of translations they praise - among them the Hexapala of Origen and the Vulgate of Jerome.
@labarum312 ..If Hovind said that, he is in need of correction. Are there portions of the Hexapala and the Vulgate that are truthful? Sure. Are there portions that are not truthful? Yes. It has to do with the MSS. Which ones to except, which to reject, that is why the book of Jasher is'nt in the KJV. BTW that's where all that Annanaki alien/planet X /Sumerian BS comes from. lol
@vachief Here is what the KJV translators had to say on the Hexapala:
"For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. [Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.] These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. "
This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."
@labarum312 ..If your going manufacture a believeable counterfiet, it has to be 98% correct or no one will "buy" it. This goes for 100 dollar bills as well as bibles. The differences are subtle and not easily discernable.
@vachief Well given that so many of the KJV readings appear only in Western mss where Greek was not spoken and were from the 10th century and later (most much much later) while everything from the first nine centuries goes the other way, then it is pretty clear who did the manufacturing, isn't it?
@labarum312 ..The real author of the Holy Bible is God himself, and he knows all the languages of earth. Like the Greek...you put to much emphasis on the Greek language as if it was the end of all. The monks at St. Catherines use ancient manuscripts to wrap thier pickel jars. The also dig up dead monks and put the skulls in a room at the monastary. Neat lol
@vachief As much as you avoid the issue, the Greek is important as much as it is the language of the oldest mss. If they had been in some other language, that would be more important. The fact is that if the oldest mss say one thing and some other reading does not show up until the ninth century, then the older one wins. No amount of dodging can avoid the evidence. Just get a text like NA27 with all the major variants and check for yourself.
@labarum312 ..I don't understand your logic around the "old is better" argument. The Nestle-Aland text as well as the UBS text is the work of Westcott & Hort. I put my trust in the Holy Bible.
@vachief Again you are woefully misinformed. The NA 27 is the work of Kurt Aland over a century after W&H. It has nothing to do with Westcott, Hort, or either Nestle. It is not the Nestle text based on W&H and two other texts and has no real connection to them. You are just repeating more of the same Ruckmanite idiocy without checking anything. Open your eyes and smell the coffee - you have been lied to repeatedly by these folks.
@labarum312 ..I'm already drinking coffee, you on the other hand are still trying to figure out how to turn on the machine. I'm here to help. lol Who are you going to believe? That is the question. Gods' word or Kurt Aland? BTW....old does'nt mean better...it just means old, and old can still be wrong.
@vachief It is absurd to believe readings that show up NOWHERE until many centuries later are correct. Do you think God forgot something the first time and sent a secratary to correct the typos? Just show any ms that matches the KJV readings before over a millennia after Christianity began. You have merely put your reliance upon things that were added by poorly trained scribes in the West who had barely knew Greek and changed things to conform with corrupted Latin readings.
@labarum312 ..I believe there are 2 paralell sets of texts as I said earlier. Your making assumtions about the KJV commitee that would be very hard to substantiate. It sounds like the stuff coming out of the Vatican, when you speak with thier scholars they see the KJV as corrupt and thier version as correct. It is an interesting subject though......more tommorow.
@vachief I am speaking of ALL manuscripts. There are no special set of KJV mss hiding somewhere. What I have said is well known and documented - it is just something you will never hear from the likes of Ruckman. There is even a pro-TR site that admits it. Just google "o beza why did you do this". Beza's conjecture appears ONLY in his version of the TR. The Elzevir brothers changed it back with their version.
@vachief This isn't even a debatable point. The evidence is so completely on one side that even those who actually prefer the Majority text reject the KJV as a proper rendering of that text. Claiming the KJV is a perfect Bible is just laughable. I have yet to find any KJV Onlyist who can explain how you trust a reading (Rev 16:5) that appears in a total of ZERO manuscripts.
@labarum312...Sure it is, old is not an indicator of infallibility. When you talk about about Rev. 16:5 are you talking about manuscripts available today? Or those that were available to the KJV commitee? I just read the text, it follows verse 3&4 quite nicely and does not controdict the rest of Rev. This is the first I've heard of that argument, tell me more. The KJV commitee relied heavily on the Geneva bible, maybe that is were they got it.
@vachief I mean every single manuscript from anywhere in anytime and anyplace. In the edition of the TR by Beza, he made a conjecture on Rev 16:5. There were few mss of Revelation and Erasmus had reverse engineered parts of the Vulgate to make his edition. Beza conjectured Erasmus was wrong and this would be proven as more Greek mss became available. He made a guess on what it really said and the KJV used his guess. He turned out to be dead wrong. Every Greek ms has Erasmus' reading.
@vachief Thus you have a verse in the KJV that appears in exactly ZERO mss. It might have been a legitiamate conjecture at the time but it turned out to be wrong. No problem - no one is perfect. But try telling that to most KJV onlyists who insist the reading is correct even though it exists nowhere.
@labarum312 ..Like I said, your the first guy I ever heard on this issue. If not the Geneva bible, what is your opinion of were it came from? So here is a question...Were did the NIV commitee get it? The rendering in the NIV is very similar to the KJV in verse 5. Who told you it appears in no manuscripts?
@labarum312 ...Don't you find it a little odd that the NIV is missing dozons of verses, yet it retains Rev. 16:5 and the wording is very similar? My guess is that Rev.16:5 is inconsequential if the intent of these new bibles is to manipulate doctrine. Maybe you should ask Palmer the question. lol
@vachief First of all, I don't use the NIV so I wouldn't know. But since you did not name any particular verses, it is difficult to ascertain whether they belonged there in the first place. As for Palmer, if you are referring to the garbage about him written by the liar Riplinger, perhaps you should take a look at what he actually wrote instead of the concocted quotes she created out of whole cloth by taking random phrases and from hundreds of pages apart and stringing them together.
@vachief Anyone who would manufacture such lies is a scoundrel - a point that could probably be verified by a couple of her ex-husbands she denied existed util someone produced the marraige certificates and divorce decrees. Riplinger is not merely wrong - she is a proven liar who distorts the writings of others to attack them.
@labarum312 ..I've heard you go on about all the the lies that GR supposedly tells, but like most people you generalize. Like I said earlier I don't believe everthing she has to say. I've got her book, starting with chapter 1, what lies are you talking about? I just finished some background on Westcott & Hort, they were indeed mixed up in spritualism and the occult.
@labarum312 ...Thanks Albert, you just walked yourself into a "checkmate" position. GR is a sinner, just like you and me and although I don't believe everything she says, she is certainly right about this issue. You can change your mind anytime you want. I changed mine, thank God.
@vachief Yes she is a sinner as are we all. The difference is that she has continued to intentionally distort what others have written with intended malice. Her lies have been pointed out numerous times and she refuses to recant or apologize. Her "quotes" were completely manufactured by her to assassinate the characters of other Christians. She is spreading division in the Body of Christ and is a false teacher. She is poison to Christ and His Church.
@labarum312 ..Jesus came to divide not unite, you have it ass backwards. The counter-reformation is in full swing, but you would label such things as crazy. Men were burned alive at the stake for refusing to recant, It kind of says something about a mans character, who would choose to die rather than turn his back on truth. There are lots of phonys in the "body of christ". Jesus said.."Come out of her, my people."
@vachief Speaking of having things backward. Gail Riplinger is one of those phonies and has been exposed repeatedly. If you choose to ignore this, that's your problem.
@Keruaran ..You and Albert are my problem. lol Let's talk about it tommorow, there is a lot of ground to cover. Your buddy James has gone into hiding, and won't discuss the subject anymore. He's either in the garden shed or under the house I'm not sure.
@vachief Riplinger is not right about any issue. You are talking about an empty sciolist and deceiver who's main claim to fame is a book that contains more documented gross misrepresentations and fabrications per page than any other piece of literature that doesn't call itself Fiction.
@vachief Here is but one small example of the rubbish you'll find in Riplinger's books:
According to Riplinger, Chicago was the city which "hatched" the NIV in 1966 (along with some other ridiculous and misleading Satanic conspiracy theory nonsense about area codes).
But all one has to do is read the preface to the NIV which will tell you it was conceived in 1965, not 1966 by a group of scholars who met at Palos Heights, Illinois, not Chicago. Sponsored by the New York Bible Society.
@Keruaran ...Like Elmhurst and Oak Park, Palos Hieghts is a suburb of Chicago. The official commisioning that was attended by a large number of churches in the area was actually held in Chicago in 1966. I got that off the NIV website. Stop spliting hairs, this is inconsequential to the real problem anyway.
@vachief Riplinger's deliberate misrepresentations are not inconsequential. She misleads the reader on places, times, dates, quotes... even area codes... She gives the impression of some kind of evil conspiracy where none existed. Which brings me to the main point: There is no "real problem" (which you continue to cling to), it is an invention. Misrepresentation is lying.
@Keruaran ...Go to the NIV website and read for yourself, she did'nt make any of that up. The real problem is that it's a crime to call the NIV a bible at all. It is full of opposite rendered verses, dozens of missing verses, all total 60,000 missing words. You should do a little more research, and stop paying attention to the likes of James White, he does'nt challenge GRs work to much any more, poor slob. lol
@vachief I don't need to, I have been familiar with the NIV preface since I was 17 years old. And this is not about the NIV, it is about misrepresentation and lies. The same misrepresentation and lies, as well as libel and slander, that Riplinger has indulged in repeatedly over the years. Do you even know what the majority text was up to 1000AD?
@Keruaran ...Your right it is'nt just about the NIV, or the 2 dozen other new bibles that are currently available. It's about the truth. Three years ago I knew very little about the Reformation, even less about the subsequent Counter-Reformation. Most Protestants today, have long forgotten that for which they protest. These New Bibles are a deliberate missrepresentation of Gods Word.
"These New Bibles are a deliberate missrepresentation of Gods Word"
If you cannot prove it, then it is slander and borders on blasphemy since you are talking about the many years people sacrifice to bring you the word of God in modern English.
@Keruaran ..I can prove it...by comparing word for word, many have been doing it for years. These new bibles were created to cause confusion, that is there intended function. The KJV does'nt need any help. Gail is not perfect but she did expose a bunch of rats.
@vachief That's the problem, you can't. You can only compare with the KJV as if that is the standard by which other English translations are measured, IT IS NOT. You need to look at the faithfulness of translations to their textual basis,and before you start saying the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are corrupt, for the first 1000 years since Christ THEY WERE THE MAJORITY TEXT TYPE. Did "Gail" tell you this? No.
@vachief Focus on the manuscript evidence, not translations. It's not that hard. Your refusal to do this indicates you think the KJV is some divine revelation more than the very texts it was translated from, all previous translations and all translations since. If you want to get into the errors and deficiencies in the KJV, we can easily enumerate and illustrate them. If you to continue slandering the good work of dedicated people through the ages then you are useful to no one but the enemy.
@Keruaran ....Now I understand what the problem is. You believe that only the original writtings of the apostles are inspired, not the subsequent copies. I wish you had said that earlier, could have saved us some time. Good luck with that idea, your gonna need it.
@Keruaran ...Salvation will be given to those that do what God asks, those instructions are contained in His book. Satan wants people to die rathar than be saved, cooking the book, is part of the process. The reformers were well aware of that when they identified the papal system as anti-christ, 500 years ago. Now adays the corrupters would have you believe "The Anti-Christ" is a bad guy who shows up in the future.
@vachief So, you do believe salvation is in the KJV and not Jesus Christ. Pity if you don't speak English isn't it? Furthermore, get specific, don't make vague accusations. Chapter and verse.
@Keruaran ....First of all the KJV has been translated into more languages than any other book in the history of the world. Secondly ...the only way to know anything about God, salvation, any other topic is by reading His Word. Jesus is the Word. Salvation is of Jesus Christ who died for the sins of mankind. John 1:14
@vachief LOL! The BIBLE has been translated into more languages than any other book, not the KJV! Seriously, get a clue. People translating the Bible into German or Swahili don't use the KJV as their textual basis! Wow... just... wow... There is no Tagalog version of the KJV sunshine, there is only the Bible in Tagalog.
@Keruaran Just to let you know I have started a new series titled "The Lies of Gail Riplinger" where I will go one by one into all her character assassinations and dishonest use of sources in detail. Two videos are already up.
@Keruaran ..When you get tired of being wrong....let me know. There are lots of KJV onlyists in the Phillipines....did you think they were reading in English? The KJV is the Bible.
@vachief Are you trolling or are you really this stupid? Tell me, how is it possible that you could spend three years on Gail Riplinger's material and never notice her blatant lies and misrepresentations? I mean, seriously, its not hard to do some basic fact checking on just about any page in "New Age Bible Versions" and find that she's distorted or just flat out lied. You don't need to be an expert on anything, just check to see if her claims are true. Her fabrications are ridiculous.
@Keruaran ....No need to get your knickers in a knot. Just point out a page of her book and we'll talk about it. Ranting on and on won't do your case any good. Pick a page and be specific, I would ask Albert to do the same. Does that sound fair to you?
@vachief Let's start with introduction where she quotes Westcott as believing in a "new age" and inferring it had something to do with the occult. (NABV, pg. 2). The footnote refers to vol 2 of Westcott's life and letters, pg 252. Watch my video on the topic titled "Lies of Gail Riplinger 2".
..Ok ...I'll watch it and comment. The NABV is really an overview. Details about the life of Westcott&Hort are covered in depth in her book Hazardous Materials which also discusses contemporary lexicons, interlinears and the various Greek/Hebrew study tools. The book is 1200 pages, pretty interesting stuff. The new age ideas popular these days have there roots in the occult. Westcott was knee deep in it.
@vachief labarum312 has already done that. Why should I have to repeat the same things? The stupidity of Riplinger's material is self evident to anyone with half a brain. I no longer have time or patience for you. Ignorant and impressionable fools who lap up Riplinger's excrement and make smarmy comments like, "When you get tired of being wrong....let me know", simply aren't worth it.
@Keruaran ...Your opening statement keeps running on counselor, either provide substantial evidence to refute the claims of GR or get out of the courtroom, you silly papist. lol
@vachief labarum312 has provided you with enough evidence. You choose to ignore the obvious. And you continue to put your idiocy on display by pretending Riplinger hasn't been refuted and by calling me a "papist" without any basis for doing so. I am not, nor have ever been a Roman Catholic, but no doubt people like Riplinger and you would quote me as having said, "I am... a Roman Catholic". Anything resembling truth is something that bone idle fools like you are just too lazy to care about.
@Keruaran ..You support the papist viewpoint, irregardless of what you call yourself. Of the over 5200 extant manuscripts, which ones do you feel are corrupt? My guess is that you, like Albert, don't buy into the corruption thing anyway, thinking perhap that it is ...all good. Albert has'nt given me anything, the stuff I give him, he does'nt answer back on, including this Westcott business.
@vachief Did I not suggest looking at the videos I made? Well, if you missed it, start here:
/watch?v=l_7QY5JKClg
/watch?v=EEGt5-_-LLM
/watch?v=FBIdzTGPgIg
/watch?v=0rLzNLZMils
The one below is not mine but it is Riplinger herself demonstrating what a complete conspiracy theory nutcase she is as she somehow ties together the NIV, the mark of the best, and the sinking of the Titanic:
@labarum312 ..No problem, I agree with you on her theology...she's a futurist. She thinks "The Anti-Christ" is a title for a bad guy that shows up in the end times. The word anti-christ in the KJV is an adjective. The reformers knew that the beast of Rev.13 was anti-christ. All I'm concerned about is her collation work as well as the background on these so-called experts in Greek and Hebrew.
@labarum312 ...I just got done reading the "Letters" myself. My conclusion is that Gail is perhaps 99% correct when it comes to Wescott & Hort. This also seems to be the conclusion of a number of heavy wieghts in the field. After all this, I'm trying to figure out your motive for defending these men. Maybe you should do a video on the merits of "purgatory". lol
@vachief You think it's ok to take pieces of phrases and just string them together with absolutely no attention to context? For example, at the top of page 185, Ripligner strings four phrases of Westcott as though they were in the same passage (using the ... ) and they were actually in different books and taken totally out of context. She says Westcott said "man is divine" when he actually said "the lie of antichrist is man is divine". You think this is acceptable?
@labarum312 I've given up on vachief. It does not seem to matter how ludicrous and blatant Gail Riplinger's misrepresentations are, he buys it. And it doesn't matter how many times you point out how obviously out of context, ridiculous and disingenuous her misquotes are, he either buys it completely or he's just trolling.
....Albert believes Westcott & Hort were Christians, all you have to do is read what they said. The truth is that they were both spritualists whos intent was to re-manufacture the text in thier image. Believing themselves isolated from the body of believers, they botched the text, thinking no one would be the wiser. That is how criminal minds work. They both should have been horsewhipped for the damage they have done.
@vachief You've never read what they said. The truth is you wouldn't know because you've only read what Gail Riplinger tells you they said. Common sense is clearly something you don't grasp.
@vachief This from someone who has read neither Westcott nor Hort but only Riplinger's bowlderizations of their writings. The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what you are tallking about. Go to westcotthort[dot]com where you can actually read what they wrote. The site also addresses the many lies spread about them. Perhaps then you will understand that you are merely bearing false witness.
@labarum312 ..Total bullhockey Albert...lol. I've read the "letters" of Westcott & Hort myself, it is the same place Gail got her info. Do some research man...and get out of that box your living in. lol
@vachief I cannot imagine what "heavyweights" you could possibly have in mind. Certainly no scholar in the fields takes anything Riplinger says seriously. Of course, if you think conspiracy theorists like Ruckman and Waite are "heavyweights" that is another matter.
@labarum312 ...I forget who coined the phrase but it fits..." You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." That is what this whole argument is really about, and that is what launched the reformation movement as well. Imagineing is'nt your strong point, I'll give you that. lol
@vachief Gail Riplinger has actually sinned against Westcott by violating Exodus 20:16 :
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ex 20:16). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
And if you think that this doesn't apply to taking phrases out of context, use a little imagination and read Matthew 5:21-28. Riplinger intended to deceive in this matter.
@vachief I need to read my Bible, God doesn't read it to me. He requires me to read for myself, to study to show myself approved. I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through every lie, manipulation and false claim Riplinger makes, page after page, when you are too lazy to fact check one single claim she makes in her books for yourself. If you cannot do even the most basic fact checking for yourself, then there is no point in me wasting my time on somebody who is willfully ignorant.
@vachief Furthermore, until you can be bothered to do even the most basic fact checking, don't message me with this arrogant and stupid rubbish. I'm quite sick of people who read printed excrement from the likes of Riplinger, never check anything to see if the claims are even close to the truth, and then carry on as if they know what they're talking about. If you're not an idiot, you're certainly making yourself look like one.
@vachief Unless you think Origen had a time machine, then this claim is total nonsense - par for the course for conspiracy theory hacks like Ruckman. Origen did a parallel Old Testament that included the Septuagint as well as others and used it to analyze the text, but saying he wrote the Septuagint is nuts. But again Ruckman is nuts so no suprise there. You really need to do some reading outside your propaganda - you have been sold a bill of goods without a shred of evidence.
@labarum312 ...So what your saying is your propaganda is better than the stuff I'm reading. lol I met a guy once that was adamant that Jesus was qouteing from the LXX. Why would He when he had the Hebrew right in front of him? Claims that the LXX is a B.C. document were invented to establish it's authority, the real truth is 250 AD. It kinda depends on who you talk to.
@vachief What the person was likely pointing out, and you were too clueless to understand, is that many NT quotes of Jesus come from the Septuagint. It does not mean Jesus spoke to them in Greek but that when the NT was written, they used the Septuagint translation.
@labarum312 ...The Septuagint otherwise known as the LXX is a crappy Greek copy of the Hebrew, that is all it is. And anyone who thinks Jesus read from it is frankly nuts, the New Testament books were written long before the LXX. More disingenuious propaganda.
@vachief You have thus proven my point that you did not understand what was being said. No one said that Jesus quoted the Septuagint. He was likely speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew. What was claimed was that the New Testament writers, writing in Greek, simply used an existing Greek translation for those specific verses of the Old Testament that was quoted. it does not mean Jesus used them. Do you always have such issues with reading comprehension?
@labarum312 ..I have had people, and that includes church pastors on U-Tube claim that Jesus read from the LXX in the temple. They want to believe the stories that it was written in 250 BC. My comprehension seems to be working ok, as for you I'm not so sure. Do you want to go over Wess & Horts letters some more, or are we all clear on that now? lol
@vachief As for the quality or lack thereof of the Septuagint, I doubt you are in a position to make any evaluation. You can read neither of the original languages and there is no guarantee that we possess the LXX in its original form. For example, the LXX was originally a translation of the Torah alone (the five books of Moses) and not the whole Tanakh. The other books were added later by different sets of translators over a period of a few centuries.
@labarum312 ..You put to much unnessesary emphasis on a persons abilty to read ancient languages. If I needed a plumber, I can easily hire one. God has made it all much easier, just pick up a KJV. Problem solved. The time of the Greek/Hebrew, has long since past.
@vachief Good afternoon vachief. I hope you are well. I first want to tell you that I am a great admirer of the KJV. I grew up with it in my church and have read it through 26 times cover-to-cover. However, i am not KJV only. I wish I had been able to aceess different versions earlier in my life.
I wish to address your lack of confidence in Greek/Hebrew. If Martin Luther had felt that way we would still be wading through a Latin Bible today.
@vachief Brother, I have no formal theological training. However, I have read many, many books on Bible interpretation and the origin of the KJV. I want to speak to you from the heart. This KJV only fight has broken up more churches and families than women wearing pants. It is awful to see Christians fighting other God fearing Chirstians. And it need not be that way. And it is ruining the reputation of fundamentalism. Again, from the heart, i want to point out a few things. Cont...
@mark0454 ...I could'nt care less how many churches get broken up over this issue. This may very well be a dividing of the wheat from the chaff. Greek/Hebrew textual criticism really only has one purpose these days, and that is to undermine faith in the Holy Bible. The work has already been done, and when the next geek says to me "The Greek really says this" he's really gonna get it. lol
@vachief "This may very well be a dividing of the wheat from the chaff." Are you saying then that our salvation is not longer based on our acceptance, love and relationship in our heart, with our savior Jesus Christ? Our salvation is dependant upon which TRANSLATION of the Bible we carry in our hand.
@mark0454 ..Salvation is based on doing the will of our Father in heaven. That is what Jesus said. Reading a book that deletes half the story, leaves you ill prepared...don't ya think?
@vachief "Reading a book that deletes half the story, leaves you ill prepared...don't ya think?" The KJV translator ADDED 18 verses to Mark 16 BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY BELONGED THERE. Read your notes from Scofield. The KJV translators ADDED thousands of words to the KJV which are italicized. Some of these ADDED words drastically and incorrectly changed the meaning of the verse. Col 2.16 ADDED DAYS. SDAs will beat you to death with the ADDED word DAYS to not mean The 7th day sabbath.
@mark0454 ....I'll take the Holy Bible over anything Mr.Scofield has to say ..any day. Scofield was part of the Catholic inspired "rapture" crowd, that has pretty much hi-jacked most of Protestant theology. This is the first I've heard of a problem with Col. 2:16. I do find it interesting how people manipulate scripture in order to advance thier own views....like Westcott & Hort.
Mr. Peter Ruckman graduated from Bob Jones University in 1959. BJU had been using the Wescott and Hort Greek NT since 1943. Other graduates of BJU who recieved their training using the Wescott are Rod Bell, Melvin Aiken Tabernacle Baptist Church. Jack Hyles and Harold Sightler graduated from universities that used Wescott and Hort exclusively. Were they corrupted by using this corrupt Greek tranlation?
@mark0454 ..Peter Ruckman is an embarrasment to the KJVO movement, that's why guys like Albert keep bringing up his name. The W & H text, which is a mirror image of the N & A text as well as the USB text, is full of opposite renderings. When you read a bible that says the complete opposite of the KJV. This is the very argument that Catholic scholars use to convince people, the KJV is corrupt.
@vachief "The W&H text, which is a mirror image of the N&A text as well as the USB (UBS)text, is full of opposite renderings" Since you not I are able to read any of these Greek translations, it would be difficult to respond here. Please do not misunderstand, i think the KJV is an excellent Bible. And if you wish to use that exclusively Lord Bless you for that
I merely disagree vehemently with those who would condemn and question the savation of those who are blessed in reading another version
@mark0454 ..The errors stand out like sore thumb...in English. lol Eccl. 8:10 KJV...wicked...were forgotten NIV...wicked...recieve praise ESV...wicked...were praised Hos. 10:1 KJV...Isreal is an empty vine NASB...Isreal is a luxuriant vine. I'm not going to comment on a persons salvation, but my feeling is you get a greater blessing from a Holy Bible....rather than a facsimlie of one.
@vachief So when you hear a pastor hear a pastor condemming a translation for removing X number of words, it may be a word that was not in any manuscript.
@mark0454 ..The NIV has all kinds of missing verses. It has over 60,000 less words in it. When you buy a can of soup, it lists the ingredients. Not so with bibles, but they should. In my humble opinion each bible should come with a complete list of manuscripts that were used to construct the text that they used for translation into English. That would pretty much settle this whole matter.
@vachief The fact that you are saying the W&H text is a "mirror image" of the Nestle/Aland demonstrates you have no idea what either text possesses. They differ in hundreds of places. I find amusing you would say such a thing when you cannot read Greek and you have never examined either text.
@labarum312 ...Just because you have Greek lexicon from Barnes & Noble, does'nt mean you can read Koine Greek or even determine what a word meant. Like I said before the work has already been done. There are relatively few people that can read ancient Greek, even Greeks can't read it, as I asked a few when I was over there. Hebrew can still be read as it has'nt changed much.
@vachief Eccl 8.10 Praised vs forgotten. What is the verse saying. The wicked went were in the Holy places. This is the imprortant thing. Israel allowed the wicked to rule the Holy places. All translations agree on this point, and this is the point of the verse. The what is the motto of Eccl. All is vanity-all is worthless. Their worship amounted to nothing because of their wickedness.
My point-Does this difference, when read in context, change the meaning of the text?
@mark0454 ...If it did'nt matter, than why produce a new bible? The argument is that the new bibles are based on better texts. My question to people like Albert is ...better in what way? lol They took Lucifer out of the book of Isaiah, and then claim he never belonged there in the first place. Were the KJV guys really that stupid? lol
@vachief No, vachief, only you are that stupid. The KJV translators knew Lucifer was a Latin word - you do not. There is no Hebrew word "lucifer" - the word is "heylel" and that is the word given to the morning star. The word "lucifer" was the Latin word commonly used to denote the planet Venus in its role as the morning star. That is why Jerome chose it. You and Riplinger are too stupid to understand the difference between Hebrew ("heylel"), Latin ("lucifer"), and English ("morning star")
@labarum312 ..The problem is the inconsistant use of the word morning star. Morning star is a title for Jesus, and is used in many places. Lucifer is a personal name, just like it's Hebrew word counter part. Very nice spin though, Albert, there are a lot of people that believe you.
@vachief No, you are wrong. Lucifer is not a personal name. It does not appear in the Hebrew text in which the Old Testament was written. It is a Latin word that literally means "light bearer" but was commonly used to denote the planet Venus among Latin speakers. That is why it was chosen to translate the Hebrew "heylel" which had the same function in Hebrew.
@vachief Your stupidity on this point is quite obvious. If "heylel" had been a name, it would have been transliterated - as the Hebrew "shatan" became "satan". Instead, it was translated: you should notice by now that "lucifer" sounds nothing like "heylel".
@vachief You need to understand how the KJV was written. It was 95% a rewrite of the Coverdayle Bible. They took the Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneve, Great, Matthews, Douay-Rheims Latin Vulgate and "formulated" the New Testament. They tranlated the Greek Septuegant and Latin Vulgate into the Old Testament.
This vision of 47 men sitting around deciphering 5300 manuscrips is simply that-a dream.
this is a terrific series! thanks so much for taking the time to do it. it is long overdue.
toobfunnybunny 1 year ago 2
@toobfunnybunny Indeed. It is extremely overdue. However, I do wish Albert would continue this series. While he may consider it as "shooting fish in a barrel" he should be aware just how many individuals place trust in Riplinger's thesis.
Mechanized0 10 months ago
The Bible warns us about people like you who will call evil good. Only the Lord gives understanding to His word so I am not surprised you don't understand. Its not certain how much they paid you for this job here but believe me, its not worth it considering the Judgement that will rain down from above on the Day of The Lord.
saeguy22 1 year ago
SIXHUNDRED THREESCORE and SIX
truevineinfantry 1 year ago
Which liberal bible college are u from
parisreidhead 1 year ago
This was so good, your delivery so wonderful, I kept on crying with laughter. You should go on Jay Leno. ;)
Where did you get these priceless pictures? Or did you make them?
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty ..Yeah....it's probably some of my best work. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief YOU did this video and its pictures? I thought you were KJVO. Did you finally wake up and get out of it?
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty ...I was just being funny, it's Alberts video. I am KJVO, more so now, than when we last spoke. It took me afew months to get through Gails book "Hazardous Materials" but well worth the read....you should read that one.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief No thank you. The woman is crazier than her own lies. I already proved you and her wacko in our first encounter, and left your bleeding torso absent arms and legs. No matter what anyone proves against you, you keep on claiming to be sane. Everyone else, knows better. BYE.
Sigh, for a moment there I thought you'd recovered. Guess not.
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty ...For some reason I remember it was you, who ended up face down in the mud, just like history, an awfull lot depends on who does the writting.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Having read Gail Riplinger's book it should be easy to understand that Albert's videos successfully debunked her claims, particularly as it pertains to the conspiracy angle of her thesis.
Mechanized0 10 months ago
@vachief Read this carefully. I'll only type it once. You are under Divine Discipline for trying to destroy the Word of God, 2Tim2:26-3:7, Phili3:18-19, end Rev 22. The writ against you reads as follows:
1. Since the KJVO adamantly refuse to admit that the LXX was written by Jews under one of the Ptolemies, even though we have EXTRA-BIBLICAL proof of the Greek's AGE, the KJVO are guilty of Anti-Semitism and denying Scripture, because (cont.)
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty from (cont.)
2. The LXX is almost exclusively quoted in the New Testament by Christ and all authors. Therefore the KJVO are claiming the NT is not inspired, either. So again the KJVO are guilty of denying Scripture and of anti-semitism, because JEWS wrote the NT and in GREEK.
The script of your discipline for trying to destroy Scripture is awesome. I wouldn't want to be in your place for all the tea in China.
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty ..Even Jerome knew the LXX was the work of Origen, produced around 200 AD or so. More Vatican spin to support the apocrypha. Here's how it works...if the LXX contains the apocrypha, and Jesus read from the LXX, than that makes the apocrypha inspired. How convenient. You can always count on the pope, for a great sales pitch. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief STUPID, I have posted the links of Jerome's letters where he chides Augustine for NOT READING the JEWISH LXX, and Augustine replied that he would, and then didn't. In short, the Origen LXX was protested BY Jerome as being INFERIOR to the Jewish LXX which Augustine had.
Dummy.
Honestly, you KJVO never even lift a finger to study. All you do is gossip doo-doo anyone can prove a lie in five minutes (or a 10-minute labarum video).
brainouty 1 year ago
@brainouty ...I'm just a dumb cop , not a scholar of reknown like yourself. I do know that a fish rots from the head down, all ya gotta do is look for a head with a fish on top. If the fish is wearing a pair of red shoes, it's a dead giveaway. Maybe the'll burn me, chop me up, and throw my bones in the river....irregardless..."We shall not be moved." LXX= Alexandrian philosophy. Just ask a Jew. lol
vachief 1 year ago
I love the way this video is made. Excellent. See w w w. avpublications. org
MrSuperchicken1 1 year ago
...Gail has done a great job exposing the occult based backgound of some of these so called "scholars" not to mention thier pedophile leanings. Gail was reading classical literature as a child, was teaching English to Greek immigrants at 18, now in her 60s there are few people as qualified as she to speak about these issues. This has more to do with Catholicism vs Protestantism.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief labaraum appears to have done, to this point, an excellent job of debunking the idea that New Age Bible Versions holds any solid validity.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 ..If you read her books you might change your mind....she is miles ahead of labaraum. It's important to labaraum to pooh-pooh the work of the counter-reformation as a crazy conspiracy theory. If your a Catholic I can understand your position. Incedently Hal Lindseys work is actually a product of Rome, even though labaraum fails to mention that.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I have read New Age Bible Versions. Having been raised a fundamentalist Baptist I was exposed to 'conspiracy theology' on a daily basis for 20 years. Jack Chick and Gail Riplinger were the primary emphasis. My own historical research exposes a great many of the misconceptions or outright deceptions Jack Chick and those of his ilk promote.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 ...I would'nt put Jack Chick in the same catagory as Gail Riplinger. Is there of conspiracy? Absolutely! The Biblical story revolves around a Satanic conspiracy to suppress the truth and lead people astray. You can't be a biblical Christian without believing that . It was Paul who first said..."beware the scribes."
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Acknowledging Satan's existence and his goals does not necessarily prove the validity of Gail Rilpinger's claims. In fact, the term "conspiracy theology" is not applicable to the discussion of Satan's actions, but rather denies the paranoia that fundamentalism breeds, where one observes a conspiracy behind every bush and tree.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 ....Then why do suppose that Paul said..."Beware the scribes." Do you think he was just being paranoid or perhaps he was aware that people would try and corrupt Christianity? Jesus was a hated man...don't forget that.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Actually I believe that was Mark and Luke in their Gospels and it was Jesus speaking. The reason was false pride in wanting the best seats at the feasts, etc. and had nothing to do with textual transmission (Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46).
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...C'mon Albert........"scribes"? There are over 50 references to scribes in the New Testament. Scribes write things ...that's what they do.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I would seriously suggest you take all the quotes by those who she condemns that appear in her book and look at her footnotes. Note how she continually strings together things from hundreds of pages apart as though they have soemething to do with each other. Then go and check the originals - many are online. You will find the quotes are just random phrases that have nothing to do with what she asserts.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 Agreed. Simply pulling out a verse in isolation ("beware the scribes") does not automatically bring credence to Riplinger's claims. One should investigate her claims as you have labarum. Linking quotes dozens or even hundreds of pages apart then splicing them together is a completely arbitrary act. I would encourage you to please continue your expose of Riplinger's book in the series you began some time back.
Mechanized0 1 year ago
@Mechanized0 ...I agree with you. Either she's telling the truth or she is lieing for some reason. After 3 years on this issue I'm inclined to believe that she is indeed correct about the intentional corruption of manuscripts used to construct Bibles. She presents to much evidence to be ignored as the work of a kook. James White challenged her....and now he has barricaded himself...interesting.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief "James White challenged her....and now he has barricaded himself...interesting. "
How so? From what he has said in his videos, his challenge to debate Gail Riplinger stands.
boan000 1 year ago
@boan000 ...Yeah....He does think he's a genuis, to bad he no longer allows comments on his channels. Unlike him, I've actually read a couple of her books. I would love for James White is explain in precise detail the reason the NIV contains 60,000 less words than the KJV.
vachief 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...I'm right in the middle of her 2nd book "Hazardous Materials" quite fascinating...who would have thought. lol Once you really start digging, it opens up a whole new world of understanding about the different bibles. If Riplinger was all by herself it would be a little hard to believe, but that is not the case at all. She has made this her lifes work....and there is a lot to it.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I would like to speak to you on the issue but the limits of comments on Youtube makes it difficult. If you would like to get together on Stickam sometime or some other way where we can go over NABV in detail I would be more than happy to do so.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...Sounds good to me....this is a fairly complicated study, although understandable by the average Joe. I was born an Episcopalian so at first I thought all this KJV onlyist stuff was just an extention of the lunitic fringe. lol I've since changed my mind. I do know this....grievous is a better term to describe evil people rather than prosperous. PM me and we'll go over it.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Gail Riplinger is a fruitcake who knowingly misrepresents what other people have written and said and has absolutely no understanding of New Testament textual criticism whatsoever. Try checking her claims to see if they actually stand up under the light of genuine scrutiny instead of swallowing her putrid mendacity whole as if it were the gospels themselves.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ....I just spent 3 years looking over her work and have read 2 of her books.....what have you done lately? lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I have studied and compared Bible translations on and off for 20 years and spent two years studying New Testament textual criticism. With the benefit of the online resources available to you today, if in 3 years you can't find any problems with her material, I have no hesitation in saying you either aren't exaclty the sharpest tool in the shed, or your "looking over her work" hasn't been terribly exhaustive at all.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..Here is a question for you then...is a KJV bible the word of God? If so ...is an NIV Bible with 60,000 less words also a Holy Bible? And seeing your a textual critic... which Greek New Testament are you refering to?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief
"KJV bible the word of God?"
Yes.
"NIV Bible with 60,000 less words also a Holy Bible?"
I am not a NIV fan. But problems with the NIV are not to do with a word count in comparison to a formal translation in 16th century English. The NIV is too interpretive and makes some arbitrary choices in the rendering of some phrases and passages I don't agree with. That said, it does render some passages better than the KJV.
Do you mean NT texts? I generally favor the eclecticism of the NA27.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..Do you think it possible that a translater could render a meaning of a word that is the exact opposite from what the KJV says? The real truth is that the set of manuscripts used to created an NIV are not the same ones as the KJV. There are basicly 2 sets of manuscripts,the southern stream (Alexandrian) favored by Rome/ Orthodoxy and the northern stream, Protestant.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief This is just absurdity. The Byzantine stream that gives the majority text IS THE TEXT OF ORTHODOXY!! That is why it is called BYZANTINE!! It happens the Textus Receptus is a particularly corrupted form of the Byzantine text. Nor was the Latin Vulgate representative of anything close to the Alexandrian readings. It might help to expand your reading choices beyond KJV Only propaganda - most of what you find in Riplinger, Ruckman, et al is complete and utter nonsense.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Your a smart guy Albert, but like me, you are not privy to all there is to know on this issue. Eastern Orthodoxy is perhaps the most corruped form of Christianity, a close 2nd to Rome. If you don't think corrupted manuscripts have something to do with that, I don't know what else to say. Example... Greeks omit Acts 8:37 from thier manuscripts to support thier view of infant baptism.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Excuse me but everyone involved in the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza) and the KJV translators also believed in infant baptism. They were Catholics, Calvinists, and Anglicans. In fact, given they were largely clergy, they likely baptized infants regularly. Check out my video "What the KJV translators really believed".
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...I'm convinced the books (Manuscipts) have been "cooked". I also think that Westcott & Hort were doing a little backburner action as well. Maybe you think Oswald killed Kennedy or there really are WMDs in Iraq, or perhaps Ana Nicole married for love. I'm convinced there is a movement to unite Christianity under one head and I will have none of it. Time will tell who is right about this.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief All the manuscripts are available to be examined. We have thousands of them from various centuries and they have been documented and confirmed numerous times. There have been numerous critical editions published - including by those who support the Majority Text (Hodges/Farstad, Robinson/Pierpont). There really is no doubt what is out there. We know the TR was based on half a dozen later mss of questionable quality that had been altered to conform with some Latin readings.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief The KJV is a translation. The argument that its textual basis is stronger or more valid than translations like the NASB is false. A a translation it is not a standard upon which it is appropriate to measure the fidelity of other translations to the earliest and best manuscript texts we have available to us today.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran Correction: Should read, "As a translation it is..."
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..You wrong buddy, when it comes to the so-called "earlier and best" manuscripts, earlier does not nessesarily mean better. Even if you don't come to the same conclusions as GR, you should read a few of her books for an education in bible production. The KJV and the NASB and the manuscripts that underscore them, are completely different books, and there is no doubt about that.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief If offered a text around 300 years from the lives of the Apostles and one from a thousand years later, I will take the former. Absent compelling evidence giving more weight to late texts, the earlier is always to be preferred. The texts that underscore the KJV and the NASB are not "completely different", that is pure folly. The day I seek an education on textual criticism from the likes of Gail Riplinger will be the day I start buying miracle spring water from Peter Popoff as well.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...I have found dozens of examples were the New Bibles say exactly opposite from the KJV. Why is that? That's how I got started in this business. If your satisfied with were you are now...that's Ok with me. This whole thing has "legs" if you ask me. I agree with you about TV preachers...90% of them are in it for the money. Do you think 70 scholars wrote the Septuigent, or did Origen write it?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I see you are buying into Ruckman's nonsense. The legend of the rabbis all translating the same way is certainly legendary but the Septuagint is not. Just as the KJV Onlyist claims of 5000 manuscripts all supporting KJV readings is complete and utter nonsense. Philo and Josephus both mention the Septuagint and there were fragments of it found in Qumran in the first century. In fact one of the Hebrew scrolls of Jeremiah matches the Sept rather rhan the Masoretic text.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..KJV Onlyists don't claim that the over 5000 extant manuscripts support the KJV...and they never did. I would expect some level of intellectual honesty here. You and I both know that Protestantism and Rome/Orthodoxy support a different set of manusripts. As an Anglican whose side are you on?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Do I need to point you to the Kent Hovind video where he says just that? As an Anglican I fully support the KJV as a legitimate translation of the Bible. But KJV Onlyism is something that would have been rejected by the KJV translators - most of whom were Anglican. I would suggest you google the preface of the KJV where they place their work in a long line of translations they praise - among them the Hexapala of Origen and the Vulgate of Jerome.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..If Hovind said that, he is in need of correction. Are there portions of the Hexapala and the Vulgate that are truthful? Sure. Are there portions that are not truthful? Yes. It has to do with the MSS. Which ones to except, which to reject, that is why the book of Jasher is'nt in the KJV. BTW that's where all that Annanaki alien/planet X /Sumerian BS comes from. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Here is what the KJV translators had to say on the Hexapala:
"For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the Authors whereof were not known. [Epiphan. de mensur. et ponderibus.] These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. "
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Interesting quote, did you get it from the Catholic encyclopedia? lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief It is from the translator's preface to the 1611 KJV. Go look it up.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief and on the Vulgate"
This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness."
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..If your going manufacture a believeable counterfiet, it has to be 98% correct or no one will "buy" it. This goes for 100 dollar bills as well as bibles. The differences are subtle and not easily discernable.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Well given that so many of the KJV readings appear only in Western mss where Greek was not spoken and were from the 10th century and later (most much much later) while everything from the first nine centuries goes the other way, then it is pretty clear who did the manufacturing, isn't it?
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..The real author of the Holy Bible is God himself, and he knows all the languages of earth. Like the Greek...you put to much emphasis on the Greek language as if it was the end of all. The monks at St. Catherines use ancient manuscripts to wrap thier pickel jars. The also dig up dead monks and put the skulls in a room at the monastary. Neat lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief As much as you avoid the issue, the Greek is important as much as it is the language of the oldest mss. If they had been in some other language, that would be more important. The fact is that if the oldest mss say one thing and some other reading does not show up until the ninth century, then the older one wins. No amount of dodging can avoid the evidence. Just get a text like NA27 with all the major variants and check for yourself.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..I don't understand your logic around the "old is better" argument. The Nestle-Aland text as well as the UBS text is the work of Westcott & Hort. I put my trust in the Holy Bible.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Again you are woefully misinformed. The NA 27 is the work of Kurt Aland over a century after W&H. It has nothing to do with Westcott, Hort, or either Nestle. It is not the Nestle text based on W&H and two other texts and has no real connection to them. You are just repeating more of the same Ruckmanite idiocy without checking anything. Open your eyes and smell the coffee - you have been lied to repeatedly by these folks.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..I'm already drinking coffee, you on the other hand are still trying to figure out how to turn on the machine. I'm here to help. lol Who are you going to believe? That is the question. Gods' word or Kurt Aland? BTW....old does'nt mean better...it just means old, and old can still be wrong.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief It is absurd to believe readings that show up NOWHERE until many centuries later are correct. Do you think God forgot something the first time and sent a secratary to correct the typos? Just show any ms that matches the KJV readings before over a millennia after Christianity began. You have merely put your reliance upon things that were added by poorly trained scribes in the West who had barely knew Greek and changed things to conform with corrupted Latin readings.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..I believe there are 2 paralell sets of texts as I said earlier. Your making assumtions about the KJV commitee that would be very hard to substantiate. It sounds like the stuff coming out of the Vatican, when you speak with thier scholars they see the KJV as corrupt and thier version as correct. It is an interesting subject though......more tommorow.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I am speaking of ALL manuscripts. There are no special set of KJV mss hiding somewhere. What I have said is well known and documented - it is just something you will never hear from the likes of Ruckman. There is even a pro-TR site that admits it. Just google "o beza why did you do this". Beza's conjecture appears ONLY in his version of the TR. The Elzevir brothers changed it back with their version.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief This isn't even a debatable point. The evidence is so completely on one side that even those who actually prefer the Majority text reject the KJV as a proper rendering of that text. Claiming the KJV is a perfect Bible is just laughable. I have yet to find any KJV Onlyist who can explain how you trust a reading (Rev 16:5) that appears in a total of ZERO manuscripts.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312...Sure it is, old is not an indicator of infallibility. When you talk about about Rev. 16:5 are you talking about manuscripts available today? Or those that were available to the KJV commitee? I just read the text, it follows verse 3&4 quite nicely and does not controdict the rest of Rev. This is the first I've heard of that argument, tell me more. The KJV commitee relied heavily on the Geneva bible, maybe that is were they got it.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I mean every single manuscript from anywhere in anytime and anyplace. In the edition of the TR by Beza, he made a conjecture on Rev 16:5. There were few mss of Revelation and Erasmus had reverse engineered parts of the Vulgate to make his edition. Beza conjectured Erasmus was wrong and this would be proven as more Greek mss became available. He made a guess on what it really said and the KJV used his guess. He turned out to be dead wrong. Every Greek ms has Erasmus' reading.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief Thus you have a verse in the KJV that appears in exactly ZERO mss. It might have been a legitiamate conjecture at the time but it turned out to be wrong. No problem - no one is perfect. But try telling that to most KJV onlyists who insist the reading is correct even though it exists nowhere.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Like I said, your the first guy I ever heard on this issue. If not the Geneva bible, what is your opinion of were it came from? So here is a question...Were did the NIV commitee get it? The rendering in the NIV is very similar to the KJV in verse 5. Who told you it appears in no manuscripts?
vachief 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...Don't you find it a little odd that the NIV is missing dozons of verses, yet it retains Rev. 16:5 and the wording is very similar? My guess is that Rev.16:5 is inconsequential if the intent of these new bibles is to manipulate doctrine. Maybe you should ask Palmer the question. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief First of all, I don't use the NIV so I wouldn't know. But since you did not name any particular verses, it is difficult to ascertain whether they belonged there in the first place. As for Palmer, if you are referring to the garbage about him written by the liar Riplinger, perhaps you should take a look at what he actually wrote instead of the concocted quotes she created out of whole cloth by taking random phrases and from hundreds of pages apart and stringing them together.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief Anyone who would manufacture such lies is a scoundrel - a point that could probably be verified by a couple of her ex-husbands she denied existed util someone produced the marraige certificates and divorce decrees. Riplinger is not merely wrong - she is a proven liar who distorts the writings of others to attack them.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..I've heard you go on about all the the lies that GR supposedly tells, but like most people you generalize. Like I said earlier I don't believe everthing she has to say. I've got her book, starting with chapter 1, what lies are you talking about? I just finished some background on Westcott & Hort, they were indeed mixed up in spritualism and the occult.
vachief 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...Thanks Albert, you just walked yourself into a "checkmate" position. GR is a sinner, just like you and me and although I don't believe everything she says, she is certainly right about this issue. You can change your mind anytime you want. I changed mine, thank God.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Yes she is a sinner as are we all. The difference is that she has continued to intentionally distort what others have written with intended malice. Her lies have been pointed out numerous times and she refuses to recant or apologize. Her "quotes" were completely manufactured by her to assassinate the characters of other Christians. She is spreading division in the Body of Christ and is a false teacher. She is poison to Christ and His Church.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Jesus came to divide not unite, you have it ass backwards. The counter-reformation is in full swing, but you would label such things as crazy. Men were burned alive at the stake for refusing to recant, It kind of says something about a mans character, who would choose to die rather than turn his back on truth. There are lots of phonys in the "body of christ". Jesus said.."Come out of her, my people."
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Speaking of having things backward. Gail Riplinger is one of those phonies and has been exposed repeatedly. If you choose to ignore this, that's your problem.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..You and Albert are my problem. lol Let's talk about it tommorow, there is a lot of ground to cover. Your buddy James has gone into hiding, and won't discuss the subject anymore. He's either in the garden shed or under the house I'm not sure.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Riplinger is not right about any issue. You are talking about an empty sciolist and deceiver who's main claim to fame is a book that contains more documented gross misrepresentations and fabrications per page than any other piece of literature that doesn't call itself Fiction.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...You should talk to Albert about Rev. 16:5. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Here is but one small example of the rubbish you'll find in Riplinger's books:
According to Riplinger, Chicago was the city which "hatched" the NIV in 1966 (along with some other ridiculous and misleading Satanic conspiracy theory nonsense about area codes).
But all one has to do is read the preface to the NIV which will tell you it was conceived in 1965, not 1966 by a group of scholars who met at Palos Heights, Illinois, not Chicago. Sponsored by the New York Bible Society.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Like Elmhurst and Oak Park, Palos Hieghts is a suburb of Chicago. The official commisioning that was attended by a large number of churches in the area was actually held in Chicago in 1966. I got that off the NIV website. Stop spliting hairs, this is inconsequential to the real problem anyway.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Riplinger's deliberate misrepresentations are not inconsequential. She misleads the reader on places, times, dates, quotes... even area codes... She gives the impression of some kind of evil conspiracy where none existed. Which brings me to the main point: There is no "real problem" (which you continue to cling to), it is an invention. Misrepresentation is lying.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Go to the NIV website and read for yourself, she did'nt make any of that up. The real problem is that it's a crime to call the NIV a bible at all. It is full of opposite rendered verses, dozens of missing verses, all total 60,000 missing words. You should do a little more research, and stop paying attention to the likes of James White, he does'nt challenge GRs work to much any more, poor slob. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I don't need to, I have been familiar with the NIV preface since I was 17 years old. And this is not about the NIV, it is about misrepresentation and lies. The same misrepresentation and lies, as well as libel and slander, that Riplinger has indulged in repeatedly over the years. Do you even know what the majority text was up to 1000AD?
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Your right it is'nt just about the NIV, or the 2 dozen other new bibles that are currently available. It's about the truth. Three years ago I knew very little about the Reformation, even less about the subsequent Counter-Reformation. Most Protestants today, have long forgotten that for which they protest. These New Bibles are a deliberate missrepresentation of Gods Word.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief
"These New Bibles are a deliberate missrepresentation of Gods Word"
If you cannot prove it, then it is slander and borders on blasphemy since you are talking about the many years people sacrifice to bring you the word of God in modern English.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..I can prove it...by comparing word for word, many have been doing it for years. These new bibles were created to cause confusion, that is there intended function. The KJV does'nt need any help. Gail is not perfect but she did expose a bunch of rats.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief That's the problem, you can't. You can only compare with the KJV as if that is the standard by which other English translations are measured, IT IS NOT. You need to look at the faithfulness of translations to their textual basis,and before you start saying the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are corrupt, for the first 1000 years since Christ THEY WERE THE MAJORITY TEXT TYPE. Did "Gail" tell you this? No.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@vachief You are not defending the word of God, you are attacking it.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..You and Albert have something in common....an inability to focus.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Focus on the manuscript evidence, not translations. It's not that hard. Your refusal to do this indicates you think the KJV is some divine revelation more than the very texts it was translated from, all previous translations and all translations since. If you want to get into the errors and deficiencies in the KJV, we can easily enumerate and illustrate them. If you to continue slandering the good work of dedicated people through the ages then you are useful to no one but the enemy.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ....Now I understand what the problem is. You believe that only the original writtings of the apostles are inspired, not the subsequent copies. I wish you had said that earlier, could have saved us some time. Good luck with that idea, your gonna need it.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief So, what now? You believe salvation is in KJV instead of Jesus Christ?
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Salvation will be given to those that do what God asks, those instructions are contained in His book. Satan wants people to die rathar than be saved, cooking the book, is part of the process. The reformers were well aware of that when they identified the papal system as anti-christ, 500 years ago. Now adays the corrupters would have you believe "The Anti-Christ" is a bad guy who shows up in the future.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief So, you do believe salvation is in the KJV and not Jesus Christ. Pity if you don't speak English isn't it? Furthermore, get specific, don't make vague accusations. Chapter and verse.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ....First of all the KJV has been translated into more languages than any other book in the history of the world. Secondly ...the only way to know anything about God, salvation, any other topic is by reading His Word. Jesus is the Word. Salvation is of Jesus Christ who died for the sins of mankind. John 1:14
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief LOL! The BIBLE has been translated into more languages than any other book, not the KJV! Seriously, get a clue. People translating the Bible into German or Swahili don't use the KJV as their textual basis! Wow... just... wow... There is no Tagalog version of the KJV sunshine, there is only the Bible in Tagalog.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran Just to let you know I have started a new series titled "The Lies of Gail Riplinger" where I will go one by one into all her character assassinations and dishonest use of sources in detail. Two videos are already up.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 Thanks labarum312 I will have a look at them.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@labarum312 .....Yeah......I'm looking forward to some detail as well, maybe James White will crawl out from under his bed and give you a hand. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..When you get tired of being wrong....let me know. There are lots of KJV onlyists in the Phillipines....did you think they were reading in English? The KJV is the Bible.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Are you trolling or are you really this stupid? Tell me, how is it possible that you could spend three years on Gail Riplinger's material and never notice her blatant lies and misrepresentations? I mean, seriously, its not hard to do some basic fact checking on just about any page in "New Age Bible Versions" and find that she's distorted or just flat out lied. You don't need to be an expert on anything, just check to see if her claims are true. Her fabrications are ridiculous.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ....No need to get your knickers in a knot. Just point out a page of her book and we'll talk about it. Ranting on and on won't do your case any good. Pick a page and be specific, I would ask Albert to do the same. Does that sound fair to you?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Let's start with introduction where she quotes Westcott as believing in a "new age" and inferring it had something to do with the occult. (NABV, pg. 2). The footnote refers to vol 2 of Westcott's life and letters, pg 252. Watch my video on the topic titled "Lies of Gail Riplinger 2".
/watch?v=EEGt5-_-LLM
labarum312 1 year ago
..Ok ...I'll watch it and comment. The NABV is really an overview. Details about the life of Westcott&Hort are covered in depth in her book Hazardous Materials which also discusses contemporary lexicons, interlinears and the various Greek/Hebrew study tools. The book is 1200 pages, pretty interesting stuff. The new age ideas popular these days have there roots in the occult. Westcott was knee deep in it.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief labarum312 has already done that. Why should I have to repeat the same things? The stupidity of Riplinger's material is self evident to anyone with half a brain. I no longer have time or patience for you. Ignorant and impressionable fools who lap up Riplinger's excrement and make smarmy comments like, "When you get tired of being wrong....let me know", simply aren't worth it.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Your opening statement keeps running on counselor, either provide substantial evidence to refute the claims of GR or get out of the courtroom, you silly papist. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief labarum312 has provided you with enough evidence. You choose to ignore the obvious. And you continue to put your idiocy on display by pretending Riplinger hasn't been refuted and by calling me a "papist" without any basis for doing so. I am not, nor have ever been a Roman Catholic, but no doubt people like Riplinger and you would quote me as having said, "I am... a Roman Catholic". Anything resembling truth is something that bone idle fools like you are just too lazy to care about.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..You support the papist viewpoint, irregardless of what you call yourself. Of the over 5200 extant manuscripts, which ones do you feel are corrupt? My guess is that you, like Albert, don't buy into the corruption thing anyway, thinking perhap that it is ...all good. Albert has'nt given me anything, the stuff I give him, he does'nt answer back on, including this Westcott business.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Did I not suggest looking at the videos I made? Well, if you missed it, start here:
/watch?v=l_7QY5JKClg
/watch?v=EEGt5-_-LLM
/watch?v=FBIdzTGPgIg
/watch?v=0rLzNLZMils
The one below is not mine but it is Riplinger herself demonstrating what a complete conspiracy theory nutcase she is as she somehow ties together the NIV, the mark of the best, and the sinking of the Titanic:
/watch?v=WNyH5A_OZs8
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..No problem, I agree with you on her theology...she's a futurist. She thinks "The Anti-Christ" is a title for a bad guy that shows up in the end times. The word anti-christ in the KJV is an adjective. The reformers knew that the beast of Rev.13 was anti-christ. All I'm concerned about is her collation work as well as the background on these so-called experts in Greek and Hebrew.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief The first four of those videos I listed deal with her alleged scholarship including Westcott.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...I just got done reading the "Letters" myself. My conclusion is that Gail is perhaps 99% correct when it comes to Wescott & Hort. This also seems to be the conclusion of a number of heavy wieghts in the field. After all this, I'm trying to figure out your motive for defending these men. Maybe you should do a video on the merits of "purgatory". lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief You think it's ok to take pieces of phrases and just string them together with absolutely no attention to context? For example, at the top of page 185, Ripligner strings four phrases of Westcott as though they were in the same passage (using the ... ) and they were actually in different books and taken totally out of context. She says Westcott said "man is divine" when he actually said "the lie of antichrist is man is divine". You think this is acceptable?
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 I've given up on vachief. It does not seem to matter how ludicrous and blatant Gail Riplinger's misrepresentations are, he buys it. And it doesn't matter how many times you point out how obviously out of context, ridiculous and disingenuous her misquotes are, he either buys it completely or he's just trolling.
Keruaran 1 year ago
....Albert believes Westcott & Hort were Christians, all you have to do is read what they said. The truth is that they were both spritualists whos intent was to re-manufacture the text in thier image. Believing themselves isolated from the body of believers, they botched the text, thinking no one would be the wiser. That is how criminal minds work. They both should have been horsewhipped for the damage they have done.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief You've never read what they said. The truth is you wouldn't know because you've only read what Gail Riplinger tells you they said. Common sense is clearly something you don't grasp.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ...Oh.. yes I have, and my advise to you, is that you should read them as well...and when your finished, you can buy vachief...a Coke.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief This from someone who has read neither Westcott nor Hort but only Riplinger's bowlderizations of their writings. The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what you are tallking about. Go to westcotthort[dot]com where you can actually read what they wrote. The site also addresses the many lies spread about them. Perhaps then you will understand that you are merely bearing false witness.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Total bullhockey Albert...lol. I've read the "letters" of Westcott & Hort myself, it is the same place Gail got her info. Do some research man...and get out of that box your living in. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I cannot imagine what "heavyweights" you could possibly have in mind. Certainly no scholar in the fields takes anything Riplinger says seriously. Of course, if you think conspiracy theorists like Ruckman and Waite are "heavyweights" that is another matter.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...I forget who coined the phrase but it fits..." You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." That is what this whole argument is really about, and that is what launched the reformation movement as well. Imagineing is'nt your strong point, I'll give you that. lol
vachief 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vachief Gail Riplinger has actually sinned against Westcott by violating Exodus 20:16 :
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ex 20:16). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
And if you think that this doesn't apply to taking phrases out of context, use a little imagination and read Matthew 5:21-28. Riplinger intended to deceive in this matter.
danheg 1 year ago
@vachief I need to read my Bible, God doesn't read it to me. He requires me to read for myself, to study to show myself approved. I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through every lie, manipulation and false claim Riplinger makes, page after page, when you are too lazy to fact check one single claim she makes in her books for yourself. If you cannot do even the most basic fact checking for yourself, then there is no point in me wasting my time on somebody who is willfully ignorant.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran ..That was beautifull....thank you for sharing. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@Keruaran I think he really is this stupid.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief Furthermore, until you can be bothered to do even the most basic fact checking, don't message me with this arrogant and stupid rubbish. I'm quite sick of people who read printed excrement from the likes of Riplinger, never check anything to see if the claims are even close to the truth, and then carry on as if they know what they're talking about. If you're not an idiot, you're certainly making yourself look like one.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@vachief Unless you think Origen had a time machine, then this claim is total nonsense - par for the course for conspiracy theory hacks like Ruckman. Origen did a parallel Old Testament that included the Septuagint as well as others and used it to analyze the text, but saying he wrote the Septuagint is nuts. But again Ruckman is nuts so no suprise there. You really need to do some reading outside your propaganda - you have been sold a bill of goods without a shred of evidence.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...So what your saying is your propaganda is better than the stuff I'm reading. lol I met a guy once that was adamant that Jesus was qouteing from the LXX. Why would He when he had the Hebrew right in front of him? Claims that the LXX is a B.C. document were invented to establish it's authority, the real truth is 250 AD. It kinda depends on who you talk to.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief What the person was likely pointing out, and you were too clueless to understand, is that many NT quotes of Jesus come from the Septuagint. It does not mean Jesus spoke to them in Greek but that when the NT was written, they used the Septuagint translation.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...The Septuagint otherwise known as the LXX is a crappy Greek copy of the Hebrew, that is all it is. And anyone who thinks Jesus read from it is frankly nuts, the New Testament books were written long before the LXX. More disingenuious propaganda.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief You have thus proven my point that you did not understand what was being said. No one said that Jesus quoted the Septuagint. He was likely speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew. What was claimed was that the New Testament writers, writing in Greek, simply used an existing Greek translation for those specific verses of the Old Testament that was quoted. it does not mean Jesus used them. Do you always have such issues with reading comprehension?
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..I have had people, and that includes church pastors on U-Tube claim that Jesus read from the LXX in the temple. They want to believe the stories that it was written in 250 BC. My comprehension seems to be working ok, as for you I'm not so sure. Do you want to go over Wess & Horts letters some more, or are we all clear on that now? lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief As for the quality or lack thereof of the Septuagint, I doubt you are in a position to make any evaluation. You can read neither of the original languages and there is no guarantee that we possess the LXX in its original form. For example, the LXX was originally a translation of the Torah alone (the five books of Moses) and not the whole Tanakh. The other books were added later by different sets of translators over a period of a few centuries.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..You put to much unnessesary emphasis on a persons abilty to read ancient languages. If I needed a plumber, I can easily hire one. God has made it all much easier, just pick up a KJV. Problem solved. The time of the Greek/Hebrew, has long since past.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Good afternoon vachief. I hope you are well. I first want to tell you that I am a great admirer of the KJV. I grew up with it in my church and have read it through 26 times cover-to-cover. However, i am not KJV only. I wish I had been able to aceess different versions earlier in my life.
I wish to address your lack of confidence in Greek/Hebrew. If Martin Luther had felt that way we would still be wading through a Latin Bible today.
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 1)God said that the original writers were inspired.
2)Since we have none of these autographs, we have the preserves word of God.
3)The KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV and many others are the preserved word of God.
4)God speaks to us through all accurate translations
5)The Textus Receptus is the Greek NT written by Erasmus, who was Catholic.
6)The Catholic church pressured Erasmus to mistranslate many passages
7)ALL of the translators of KJV were Anglican, as were Wescott and Hort.
mark0454 1 year ago
@vachief Brother, I have no formal theological training. However, I have read many, many books on Bible interpretation and the origin of the KJV. I want to speak to you from the heart. This KJV only fight has broken up more churches and families than women wearing pants. It is awful to see Christians fighting other God fearing Chirstians. And it need not be that way. And it is ruining the reputation of fundamentalism. Again, from the heart, i want to point out a few things. Cont...
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ...I could'nt care less how many churches get broken up over this issue. This may very well be a dividing of the wheat from the chaff. Greek/Hebrew textual criticism really only has one purpose these days, and that is to undermine faith in the Holy Bible. The work has already been done, and when the next geek says to me "The Greek really says this" he's really gonna get it. lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief "This may very well be a dividing of the wheat from the chaff." Are you saying then that our salvation is not longer based on our acceptance, love and relationship in our heart, with our savior Jesus Christ? Our salvation is dependant upon which TRANSLATION of the Bible we carry in our hand.
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ..Salvation is based on doing the will of our Father in heaven. That is what Jesus said. Reading a book that deletes half the story, leaves you ill prepared...don't ya think?
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief I am not sure you actually know what salvation truly means. Do you think that you are a good person?
danheg 1 year ago
@vachief "Reading a book that deletes half the story, leaves you ill prepared...don't ya think?" The KJV translator ADDED 18 verses to Mark 16 BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY BELONGED THERE. Read your notes from Scofield. The KJV translators ADDED thousands of words to the KJV which are italicized. Some of these ADDED words drastically and incorrectly changed the meaning of the verse. Col 2.16 ADDED DAYS. SDAs will beat you to death with the ADDED word DAYS to not mean The 7th day sabbath.
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ....I'll take the Holy Bible over anything Mr.Scofield has to say ..any day. Scofield was part of the Catholic inspired "rapture" crowd, that has pretty much hi-jacked most of Protestant theology. This is the first I've heard of a problem with Col. 2:16. I do find it interesting how people manipulate scripture in order to advance thier own views....like Westcott & Hort.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief You might find this interesting.
Mr. Peter Ruckman graduated from Bob Jones University in 1959. BJU had been using the Wescott and Hort Greek NT since 1943. Other graduates of BJU who recieved their training using the Wescott are Rod Bell, Melvin Aiken Tabernacle Baptist Church. Jack Hyles and Harold Sightler graduated from universities that used Wescott and Hort exclusively. Were they corrupted by using this corrupt Greek tranlation?
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ..Peter Ruckman is an embarrasment to the KJVO movement, that's why guys like Albert keep bringing up his name. The W & H text, which is a mirror image of the N & A text as well as the USB text, is full of opposite renderings. When you read a bible that says the complete opposite of the KJV. This is the very argument that Catholic scholars use to convince people, the KJV is corrupt.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief "The W&H text, which is a mirror image of the N&A text as well as the USB (UBS)text, is full of opposite renderings" Since you not I are able to read any of these Greek translations, it would be difficult to respond here. Please do not misunderstand, i think the KJV is an excellent Bible. And if you wish to use that exclusively Lord Bless you for that
I merely disagree vehemently with those who would condemn and question the savation of those who are blessed in reading another version
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ..The errors stand out like sore thumb...in English. lol Eccl. 8:10 KJV...wicked...were forgotten NIV...wicked...recieve praise ESV...wicked...were praised Hos. 10:1 KJV...Isreal is an empty vine NASB...Isreal is a luxuriant vine. I'm not going to comment on a persons salvation, but my feeling is you get a greater blessing from a Holy Bible....rather than a facsimlie of one.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief So when you hear a pastor hear a pastor condemming a translation for removing X number of words, it may be a word that was not in any manuscript.
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ..The NIV has all kinds of missing verses. It has over 60,000 less words in it. When you buy a can of soup, it lists the ingredients. Not so with bibles, but they should. In my humble opinion each bible should come with a complete list of manuscripts that were used to construct the text that they used for translation into English. That would pretty much settle this whole matter.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief The fact that you are saying the W&H text is a "mirror image" of the Nestle/Aland demonstrates you have no idea what either text possesses. They differ in hundreds of places. I find amusing you would say such a thing when you cannot read Greek and you have never examined either text.
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ...Just because you have Greek lexicon from Barnes & Noble, does'nt mean you can read Koine Greek or even determine what a word meant. Like I said before the work has already been done. There are relatively few people that can read ancient Greek, even Greeks can't read it, as I asked a few when I was over there. Hebrew can still be read as it has'nt changed much.
vachief 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..Like you ...all I know is what I have read in English. That's all I need.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief Eccl 8.10 Praised vs forgotten. What is the verse saying. The wicked went were in the Holy places. This is the imprortant thing. Israel allowed the wicked to rule the Holy places. All translations agree on this point, and this is the point of the verse. The what is the motto of Eccl. All is vanity-all is worthless. Their worship amounted to nothing because of their wickedness.
My point-Does this difference, when read in context, change the meaning of the text?
mark0454 1 year ago
@mark0454 ...If it did'nt matter, than why produce a new bible? The argument is that the new bibles are based on better texts. My question to people like Albert is ...better in what way? lol They took Lucifer out of the book of Isaiah, and then claim he never belonged there in the first place. Were the KJV guys really that stupid? lol
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief No, vachief, only you are that stupid. The KJV translators knew Lucifer was a Latin word - you do not. There is no Hebrew word "lucifer" - the word is "heylel" and that is the word given to the morning star. The word "lucifer" was the Latin word commonly used to denote the planet Venus in its role as the morning star. That is why Jerome chose it. You and Riplinger are too stupid to understand the difference between Hebrew ("heylel"), Latin ("lucifer"), and English ("morning star")
labarum312 1 year ago
@labarum312 ..The problem is the inconsistant use of the word morning star. Morning star is a title for Jesus, and is used in many places. Lucifer is a personal name, just like it's Hebrew word counter part. Very nice spin though, Albert, there are a lot of people that believe you.
vachief 1 year ago
@vachief No, you are wrong. Lucifer is not a personal name. It does not appear in the Hebrew text in which the Old Testament was written. It is a Latin word that literally means "light bearer" but was commonly used to denote the planet Venus among Latin speakers. That is why it was chosen to translate the Hebrew "heylel" which had the same function in Hebrew.
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief Your stupidity on this point is quite obvious. If "heylel" had been a name, it would have been transliterated - as the Hebrew "shatan" became "satan". Instead, it was translated: you should notice by now that "lucifer" sounds nothing like "heylel".
labarum312 1 year ago
@vachief You need to understand how the KJV was written. It was 95% a rewrite of the Coverdayle Bible. They took the Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneve, Great, Matthews, Douay-Rheims Latin Vulgate and "formulated" the New Testament. They tranlated the Greek Septuegant and Latin Vulgate into the Old Testament.
This vision of 47 men sitting around deciphering 5300 manuscrips is simply that-a dream.
mark0454 1 year ago