Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

1 Corinthians 5:6,Galatians 5:9.

[ June 29, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: MV-neverist ]

 

Good post, Andy. I like numbers, it puts things in perspective.

 

why is it that KJBOs like Cloud n Waite never worry over the verses changed between TR editions n evern more between the TR editions n the Majority text?

they seem always to harp on TR vs Alexandrian.

any KJBO wants to take a stab at this?

 

Imagine that,thanking God for corrupt Papal manuscripts!

" Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "

 

WHAAAAAT IS THIS????

A well reasoned, sound, edifying post on the
bible version forum???? Wow...

Great post Andy

I recently bought a book that has all the early
Papyrus Manuscripts in it from 100-300 AD. I've been comparing some of them to TR and CT texts. The amount of agreement I've seen so far is absolutely incredible. Of course not in every case..but overall I've been absolutely astounded. Some of these papyrus were (apparently) hidden in Jars away from the Churches to protect them from Diocletians persecution and Bible destruction in 302 AD. And to dig them up..and find such agreement with manuscripts from the 13th - 14th century is another testimony to God's preservation IMHO.

-kman

 

wow, but it's ok to have the KJB1611 n KJB1769 REMOVE all the jots n tittles fr God's words?

n u dare pick others' eyes for motes.

 

MV-neverist about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
"Imagine that,thanking God for corrupt Papal manuscripts! "

Whatever is wrong with those texts, they aren't 'Papal' in the slightest. The Vaticanus is kept in the Vatican library, but so is the original Heidelberger Catechismus and nobody thinks of that as a 'Papal' document.

 

Do not be decieved,Jerome's Vulgate came directly from Vaticanus;bibles from the RCC and from 1881 on has it's roots in those manuscripts,and they line up with the Vulgate.Like I said PAPAL

 

Harald, be careful of your words. If this was my forum, this would earn you a formal warning. You don't have to agree with W & H's conclusions or respect their work. But outright, unsupported and false slander is completely uncalled for. I have read many of their books, and I assure you they were the exact opposite of "manifest servants of Satan". How many of their books have you read? One day, you will have to apologize to their faces for such words. Luckily, they will forgive you.

And I'm pretty sure that to say that those who accept W/H's work have swallowed the "strong delusion" is against board rules. But we're used to KJV-onlies taking scripture out of context, so no biggie.

 

It ain't,so you can't.

I don't and definatly WON'T!

Dont bet the farm on that one.

At least we believe we have the Scriptures!

Harald,for once I agree with you 100%!!!

 

How do you know this?? Did you find the autographs to compare them to?? Or are you simply comparing them against your preference??? Of course, we all know the latter is the case. These categorical statements are foolish and uncalled for.

And how in the world do you know this??? This is the type of rhetoric that gets us nowhere. Aside from the fact that you can't know this, it simply makes no difference. We are not followers of Westcott and Hort and the sooner you learn this, the sooner you will be able to offer some reasonable contributions to this thread.

So now you are doubting whether or not people who use hte general principles of modern textual criticism are really saved?? Come on now Harald. You know better. You cannot prove this is a delusion. There is more evidence that you are the one following the delusion by following a Greek text that has very little support in a number of places.

This is totally out of line and you know better. In all of your posts on this forum, this is absolutely the worst one you have ever come up with. It is a horrible attempt at supporting your position.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Come back to reality Harald. Contribute positively to this discussion.

 

Unless you can provide proof (which you can't), you slander. Again, how many of their books have you actually read? Or are you just believing Riplinger's and other's butchered quotes and false assumptions?

Since they are unable (and/or unwilling) to provide evidence of heresy, I would say so.

See if you can fathom this: I own 14 books written by Westcott and/or Hort. I research supposed "quotes" others put forth, and I've yet to see a negative-sounding quote that stood up to scrutiny, if you consider things like context, etc. My opinion of them is based on *what I read from their own words, in context*. Are you able to say the same? I think not.

I find that before people open their mouth boldly, they should open a few books boldly, and check things for themselves. Usually the only good thing that opening your mouth does, without first checking the evidence for yourself, is provide a place to put your foot.

 

Harald, I hope this is not an indication that you are abandoning godly, reasoned discretion. I disagree with your take on the TR but have admired some of your thoughts and certainly admired your spirit in general.

As far as the "lies and falsehoods" go, I was not aware there had been a conclusion of the matter of whose side the evidence falls on. If I missed it along the way, please tell me where .

I personally favor the majority position over the CT. But as you know the TR does not equal the MT in several places. In those places, I find the TR suspect and almost certainly not original.

The disappointment for me is not and would not be that you take a strong, reasoned position different than mine or Brian's. It would be if you arbitrarily concluded that your position was correct and that anyone who disagreed with you was under satanic deception or worse.

 

Exactly, can't many naturalistic scholars see your point here?

 

Respect unbelievers' work? Why did W & H and Jesus disagree with the book of Genesis?

 

How do you know this?? </font>[/QUOTE]Hoskier examined them and found these MSS disagreeing each other in the Gospels alone 3,000 times!

They did not believe in parts of the Bible as the Words of God. They did not believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ in the Bible. How could you call them, "christians" IF these men did NOT believe the Bible?

John 5:46-47 said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"