Anyone who is not a doer of the word is deluded. They are in effect practical atheists. Then ask yourself who that includes. It extends to many of those who claim to have right doctrine.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?
- Thread starter Eliyahu
- Start date
So Much Misunderstanding, So Little Time
Can you give an actual citation of this?
I'm not aware of any reputable text critic who said 'oldest is best.' The general rule of thumb is that the older a mss. is the MORE LIKELY it is to have less corruptions - but even that is hardly an ironclad rule.
If they did, would that make you more or less likely to read that version?
For starters, your comparison is flawed. The reason virtually all NON-KJVO textual critics (with the obviouis exception of MT advocates like Robinson and Hodges-Farstad) reject these 12 verses as Marcan is because of a whole slew of evidence, not just the fact 'the two oldest omit it.' There are at least five different renderings of the ending of Mark - all explainable if the shorter ending is authentic and ONLY THE SHORT ONE explainable by the longer ending.
As far as why they didn't remove it, there is a difference between canonicity and original author. There is also the simple fact that folks who hold to the KJV tradition will get upset (as they do anyway).
Why doesn't the KJV put it in Luke like some mss. do?
Because just because something is in an old mss. does not necessarily mean it is the most likely original. You do not even understand the position you are opposing, sir.
Because that is NOT a principle.
Textual criticism is one primary canon: the original reading is most likely the one that can explain the rise of all variant readings.
That's it.
Then there are two basic sub-canons. First, the shorter reading is to be preferred. Secondly, the more difficult reading is to be preferred.
If you think 'oldest is best' then you really need to acquaint yourself with the issue BEFORE spouting nonsense like this thread exhibits.
Omitted compared to what? The KJV?
Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps an ounce of humility indicates to some of them they MIGHT be wrong and those passages MIGHT be authentic - and thus they simply avert to the path of least resistance?
For Pete's sake, they put marginal notes in these places - and you're mad about those, too.
They do, they're called marginal notes.
Why did the KJV folks ADD to God's Word all those italics? I mean, we could go on forever, bud.
Why is it virtually every KJVOist on the planet is a Baptist who uses a Bible translated by BABY SPRINKLERS?
But you can hardly say that anything compares. They do take out I John 5:7, for example, but the textual evidence is night vs. day.
At least there's the admission of 'Maybe our TC is wrong.'
Can you give an actual citation of this?
I'm not aware of any reputable text critic who said 'oldest is best.' The general rule of thumb is that the older a mss. is the MORE LIKELY it is to have less corruptions - but even that is hardly an ironclad rule.
If they did, would that make you more or less likely to read that version?
For starters, your comparison is flawed. The reason virtually all NON-KJVO textual critics (with the obviouis exception of MT advocates like Robinson and Hodges-Farstad) reject these 12 verses as Marcan is because of a whole slew of evidence, not just the fact 'the two oldest omit it.' There are at least five different renderings of the ending of Mark - all explainable if the shorter ending is authentic and ONLY THE SHORT ONE explainable by the longer ending.
As far as why they didn't remove it, there is a difference between canonicity and original author. There is also the simple fact that folks who hold to the KJV tradition will get upset (as they do anyway).
Why doesn't the KJV put it in Luke like some mss. do?
Because just because something is in an old mss. does not necessarily mean it is the most likely original. You do not even understand the position you are opposing, sir.
Because that is NOT a principle.
Textual criticism is one primary canon: the original reading is most likely the one that can explain the rise of all variant readings.
That's it.
Then there are two basic sub-canons. First, the shorter reading is to be preferred. Secondly, the more difficult reading is to be preferred.
If you think 'oldest is best' then you really need to acquaint yourself with the issue BEFORE spouting nonsense like this thread exhibits.
Omitted compared to what? The KJV?
Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps an ounce of humility indicates to some of them they MIGHT be wrong and those passages MIGHT be authentic - and thus they simply avert to the path of least resistance?
For Pete's sake, they put marginal notes in these places - and you're mad about those, too.
They do, they're called marginal notes.
Why did the KJV folks ADD to God's Word all those italics? I mean, we could go on forever, bud.
Why is it virtually every KJVOist on the planet is a Baptist who uses a Bible translated by BABY SPRINKLERS?
But you can hardly say that anything compares. They do take out I John 5:7, for example, but the textual evidence is night vs. day.
At least there's the admission of 'Maybe our TC is wrong.'
thomas15
Well-Known Member
What I think will happen here is you will scratch your head and keep on scratching until you wear a hole in your head and your brains will thus fall out. I see no other end game for you. I recommend that for your own safety you should wear protective headgear. Better to be safe and protect that brain.
I have been busy in the meantime.
Do you still believe that John 14:26 applies only to the limited people?
When I am taking an exam, if the exam is entirely about the Bible Truth, and the examiner is God, or the expected answer is entirely Truth given by the Holy Spirit, then I would entirely pray God for the answer. But if the exam is about the science which I learned from the teacher, then I must have prepared for it and recited what I learned , and in that process I would have prayed God to help me with the wisdom and strength.
When we are discerning about the Words of God, God Himself will surely help us to discern between the right and the wrong.
What about this?
Matthew 7:
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven
Matthew 7: 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
How can you discern what is the Will of the Father in Heaven?
Do you have to refer to the TC?
If you have the practice of praying God for His guidance, it won't be difficult for you to discern the right and the wrong.
Do you still believe that Following the Holy Spirit instead of TC is the violation of the 3rd commandment?
Then even your title is the violation of the 3rd Commmandment!
Telling the people that you are a Christian while you don't behave in His perfection means the exposing the name of God in vain. If you are afraid about the 3rd commandment, don't tell anyone that you are a Christian! as Peter denied Him. Then do you think you will be safe with the 3rd Commandment?
I believe it applies as Christ spoke it.
So in Bible class, you wouldn't study the Bible in preparation but just expect that God will give you the answers when you pray?
What's the difference?
If the Holy Spirit is speaking to you, you don't have to be discerning.
What about it?
By reading his word.
Yes, because if you don't, you won't know what his Word is.
This is a silly question. You don't follow one or the other. The Holy Spirit works through TC. The question may be which form of textual criticism is most appropriate. But let's face it, the Bible gives no indication that the Spirit speaks directly to things like textual criticism.
Huh?
There are certainly some strong implications there aren't there ...
I am not afraid of the third commandment. But we should not ... must not use the name of God for something he has not used it for.
Please don't be ambiguous in answering. Do you apply the teachings of John 14:26 by Jesus to your own life? Yes or No please.
I wouldn't go to any Bible College or any Seminary of Theology. That was the guidance by the Holy Spirit after I was born again.
I attended the church about 10 years before I was born again, it was 4-5 years after I was baptized by sprinkling that I was born again just 3 days before my suicide attempt. Since then I was so much eager to read the Bible, and wanted to go to a Seminary, and I could expect a promising career in the theology, etc. But the Holy Spirit clearly opposed to me, and I surrendered myself to Him. It may be because He opposes to the Clergy system as Jesus hates the Deeds and teachings of Nicolaitanes ( Re 2:6, 15)
For my own Bible Study, I don't need any other books than the Bible itself and Dictionary etc. That is different from TC.
If the Exam is the science, I need the preparation. But for the pure Words of God, I don't need any other study than reading the Bible, which doesn't require any theology or TC. Everyone can understand the Bible exactly the same as the Galilean fishermen did even if they didn't study any TC.
Holy Spirit teaches me by humbling me and giving me the Understanding. Don't you have any guidance from the HS?
So, if you can know the Will of the Father in Heaven by reading His Word. Then why do you think you have to rely on the TC? and that I can not discern the Will of Father by reading His Word? Do you think I have to consult with the TC for that?
IMO, Textual Criticism may be a Total Chaos in the presence of God!
Holy Spirit teaches me by giving me the Understanding for each biblical questions. Some day may come when you know who I am and what I am doing.
Are you claiming that TC is the Holy Spirit? It is a human theory in the presence of Holy Spirit!
No, Jesus never mentioned such human theology, the Holy Spirit never mentioned such tool.
It is not only Jesus but Paul in Gal 5 who said that we should follow the Spirit dwelling within us. If we find Him and follow Him as He commanded, is it the violation of the 3rd commandment?
Follow the Holy Spirit, not the TC, then He will give you the understanding and the wisdom to read and discern the Bible translation, and reorganize when you have a free time. You wouldn't need TC!
TC is just a himan theory, which we don't have to rely on.
Last edited:
I have already answered this several times in this thread. Jesus spoke it to the disciples as a preconfirmation of the NT writings. It doesn’t apply to anyone except those who write the NT.
In which verse did the Spirit tell you that?
You are a good illustration of the necessity of Bible college. The stuff you are saying here is so far out of bounds it is hard to imagine how someone without Bible college came up with it. You need to submit yourself to the teaching of a good church who can help you with the Bible.
Not sure what that means. God instituted pastors and teachers in the church. He doesn’t oppose pastors and teachers.
You don’t even have a Bible without TC.
Actually, when you study the Bible you are reading from a theological persuasion. You are making a dichotomy here that doesn’t exist.
You don’t have to study TC (as it is evident you haven’t). But realize you don’t have a Bible without TC.
Yes.
Because you don’t have the Bible without TC.
I think you can discern the will of God by reading his Word. But you don’t have a Word to read without TC.
Your opinion is wrong. Certain requirements of TC might be problematic, particularly as it comes to the TR method, but TC is necessary to have a Bible.
Not sure what you mean here. But the reality is that what you are saying here might be right, but it is not for the reasons you claim.
It is a method of deciding between textual variants. You practice TC every day.
Which means you can’t claim the Spirit’s knowledge about it.
Nope. Follow what the Spirit says. But learn to discern the actually work of the Spirit.
No, the Holy Spirit did not work through TC. Westcott and Hort, who were unbelievers, invented this TC where modern versions followed.
God provided the people His Book, TC provides you ANOTHER books, namely modern versions because W/H invented TC.
WHO NEEDS TC? YOU??? Not me! Not Eliyahu!
How do you know this? Remember, you don't even have a Bible without textual criticism.
No actually, you do need it, even in the KJV. You have to use TC to determine which KJV to follow.
Sorry, you can't do without it.
Could you give an example of one Bible we have today that was not the result of textual criticism?
There was and has been textual criticism since there were texts to criticize. Don't blame Westcott and Hort for your inability to comprehend that.
You are very much honest in confessing your Unbelief and Disobedience to the Lord. All the teachings of Jesus Christ apply to me and to my life. This shows the great root of the disagreement between MV supporters and KJV defenders.
I have hundreds of testimonies of my actual life. If you know me in person, you will change your views but this may be the limit of the internet communication.
I am preaching Jesus Christ by living the life of what Jesus Christ taught in the Bible, and therefore many people call me " the good Samaritan" Does the TC teach such thing?
You don't know how to distinguish between the Offices and Gifts. There are only 2 Offices in NT which are Elders and Deacons, and the Elders were also called as Overseers ( Ac 20:17, 20:28) The gifts are mentioned in Ephesians 4:9-11 and 1 Cor 12 and 14. All believers are the priests as you can read 1 Peter 2:5-9. Everyone can preach and baptize the Believers as Philip did in Ac 8.
Wrong !
Bible existed before TC existed. Read 2 Tim 3:15-.
If you want to say that the Serpent which asked " Yea, Hath God said that?" ( Gen 3:2) is the great father of TC, then you can claim the TC existed before the Bible existed. But even in that case, remember the Bible is the Word of God, and the Word of God existed on this world since the Creation of the World, even before the father of TC existed.
I do have the Bible even though I reject TC, Textual Criticism, the Total Chaos !
You may be a Pastor of TC, but I am a real Pastor of Jesus Christ. YOu may worship TC on top of the Holy Spirit.
I have the Word of God every day without TC. I kneel down to Jesus Christ and the HS guides me with the Understanding.
If you said Yes, why don't you apply the guidance by the Holy Spirit even to the Study of the Bible and to Discernment of the Texts instead of relying on the other human beings? Did any TC critics claim that they present the opinion by the guidance of the HS?
I practice the Word of God, not the TC every day. My policy is very simple, I obey what Jesus said, and follow the guidance by HS every day.
Do you think the HS who guides me everyday for my daily life, cannot help me in discerning which text is right and which statement is correct? Some of them may take long time, but most of them don't require long time for the discernment.
Last edited:
If you guys claim the Broader sense of TC started earlier than Revision Committee etc., then you can claim the Founder of the TC is the Serpent in Genesis 3:1-5.
" Yea, Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? "
Do you really follow the guidance by the Holy Spirit?
A few months ago ( may be in March), there was a airplane accident in Western New York, then the funeral service was held in Buffalo. The Service was a multi-religion service. The place was a Wesleyan Church. I was interested in watching the prayers by the pastors of various protestant churches, and priests there because I had attended Wesleyan church awhile before.
The pastor prayed and never mentioned Jesus Christ, never mentioned the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. Prayer was not ended in the name of Jesus Christ. What a shame is that? Were they not taught in the Bible Colleges?
" Yea, Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? "
Do you really follow the guidance by the Holy Spirit?
A few months ago ( may be in March), there was a airplane accident in Western New York, then the funeral service was held in Buffalo. The Service was a multi-religion service. The place was a Wesleyan Church. I was interested in watching the prayers by the pastors of various protestant churches, and priests there because I had attended Wesleyan church awhile before.
The pastor prayed and never mentioned Jesus Christ, never mentioned the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ. Prayer was not ended in the name of Jesus Christ. What a shame is that? Were they not taught in the Bible Colleges?
In the other thread about John 1:18, I explained 10 reasons in defense of Only Begotten Son.
Can anyone expound the apologetics in defense of Only Begotten God?
Can it be the discernment guided by the Holy Spirit ?
Can anyone explain Jesus taught " Ask anything to me in my name" as you read John 14:14 in modern versions?
Do you ask yourself about anything in your name?
Do you believe Mark 16:9-20 is not a part of the Bible? Then choose any Bible which doesn't add to the Bible what is not the Bible.
If you believe it is the part of the Bible, you admit Vatican Text is wrong! right?
If you deny Johanine Comma ( 1 John 5:7) is not in the Bible, then explain why 1 John 5:8 uses the masculine gender for hoi treis.
Acts 8:37, can you explain why Philip and the Eunuch became dumb without this verse in Modern Versions?
Can anyone expound the apologetics in defense of Only Begotten God?
Can it be the discernment guided by the Holy Spirit ?
Can anyone explain Jesus taught " Ask anything to me in my name" as you read John 14:14 in modern versions?
Do you ask yourself about anything in your name?
Do you believe Mark 16:9-20 is not a part of the Bible? Then choose any Bible which doesn't add to the Bible what is not the Bible.
If you believe it is the part of the Bible, you admit Vatican Text is wrong! right?
If you deny Johanine Comma ( 1 John 5:7) is not in the Bible, then explain why 1 John 5:8 uses the masculine gender for hoi treis.
Acts 8:37, can you explain why Philip and the Eunuch became dumb without this verse in Modern Versions?
Really? So the fig tree wilted before you came back? You denied Christ three times before the rooster crowed? You saw him rise again after three days? You were making merchandise in God's temple and received his whipping and excoriation? Shall I continue or do you want to retract this statement? Hopefully the latter since you are obviously wrong.
The truth is that the verse in question is testifying to the inspiration of the NT. It wasn'r referring to your ramblings on the internet. I have seen this verse claimed for all manner of nonsense, including JW doctrine. It simply doesn't work the way you are claiming.
This is probably true. We believe the Bible means what it says. You apparently think it is a prop for your own uses.
But you are denying the word of God by your attacks on it. NO matter how good your deeds are, wrong doctrine, even if well intentioned, is bad.
What? to preach Jesus by living the life Jesus taught in the Bible? TC isn't about teaching that. But modern versions certainly teach it.
Yes i Do.
For the most part yes although this is very simplistic, and totally off topic.
I said "you" don't have one. Any Bible that exists after the first generation of manuscript copies is the result of textual criticism, according to some standard. Any time you have to decide between two or more variants, you have to practice TC.
No you don't. The KJV is the product of textual criticism. It simply uses different criteria. You see, TC is simply deciding which reading is authentic. When you included the ending of Mark, you were practicing TC.
No, I worship God. I preach the gospel.
No you don't. This just shows you don't know what you are talking about.
This things are not mutually exclusive. God teaches us through the ministry of others.
No, everyday when you say "that passage is in the Word" or "that passage is not a part of the Bible" (as you have consistently done here), you are practicing TC.
Yes I think that.
We already did.
Yes
Yes
No
This was pretty thoroughly discussed.
Probably because the "Spirit" is personal. He does the same thing in John 14:26 and 15:26.
They didn't.
\What proof do you have that they were unbelievers? I cannot think of any modern translation which even alludes to WH.
The only "proof" (I prefer to call it "poof") there is are out of context quotations from their writings.
I call it "poop" or "dung" for the sinfully stupid charge that W&H were unbelievers.