Corrupt Manuscripts from Egypt?

If you're referring to the Word in John's Gospel, the Word John is talking about is not the Book text, it's the Message.

 

I like your post JIL because it show how incredibly stupid this KJVO argument truly is. If it is legitimate (which it isn't) to condemn the Alexandrian family because of some supposed relationship to Bible curses against Egypt then it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Egypt is also a land of preservation, maturing, and preparation. Remember also that God's people brought great wealth out of Egypt to enable them to accomplish His purpose for them.

As far as the occult is concerned, they were everywhere then even in Israel.

 

And don't forget that God sent Joseph into Egypt to preserve life (Gen. 50:20).

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with the Gnostics & Philosophers of Alexandria, Egypt;henceforth,from which came the Alexandrian family of corrupt Greek Vatican texts.
Included in this "Heritic's Row" are, Philo,Pantaenus,Clement,Origen(See Matt 19:12 for more on Origen),Pamphilus,And Eusebius. Also, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles(published Anti-Receptus corrupt Greek text in 1870.And Eberhard Nestle.

 

JYD, do you have any solid evidence that these men were heretics, that their supposed heresies are the source of textual variations, or that the textual variations are the result of heretical origin? Or do you just have hearsay and suspicion?

 

Heritic's Row of Alexandria:
1.Philo,(humanistic Philosopher) [Col 2:8]founder of Catechetical School. Pioneer of Allegorical method of Hermenuetics(biblical interpretation.)

2.Pantaenus,"supposedly"the first "christian" Headmaster of ALEXANDRIAN school of Theology and Philosophy[col 2:8]

3.Clement,believed(get this)Plato's writings were INSPIRED.Whoa!!

4.Origen,Heritic from ALEXANDRIA;migrated to Caesarea after self-mutilation(Matt 19:12)for heavely gain,to attempt corruption of Syrian manuscripts..

5.Pamphilus,central link between the corrupting hand of Origen and modern English versions.

6.Eusebius, received Origen's corrupt readings from Pamphilus. These corrupt reading comprise VATICANUS and SINAITICUS MAnuscripts..

7.Samuel Prideaux Tregelles(again) Published anti-Receptus corrupt Greek N.T. in 1870..

8.Eberhard Nestle(again),German "scholar" whose corrupt initial Greek N.T. of 1898 has undergone TWENTY-SEVEN revisions...

If this is not proof egnough(probaly not) then check it out for yourselves..

 

JYD, I was hoping for something a little more specific. Notes below:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall Philo as an early church father. Anyway, founding of a school does not make one a heretic, and I see no evidence of manuscript tampering.

Again, being a headmaster of a school does not make one a heretic, and I see no evidence of manuscript tampering.

And do you have evidence to back up this claim? And where is the evidence of manuscript tampering?

As I understand it, Origen was simply taking Matt 5:30 literally, as opposed to you who I'm sure allegorizes it away. Also, I don't see evidence for your claim of manuscript tampering, or even attempted manuscript tampering.

How was he the "central link"? What does this even mean? Where is the evidence of being a heretic or manuscript tampering?

How is "receiving" a reading evidence of being a heretic, or of manuscript tampering?

How was Tregelles a heretic? His NT was different from the TR, yes, but you have not shown that the difference is bad thing instead of correction.

Yes, revisions because new information is constantly being made available, and corrections are done. Just like what happened with the TR. Correcting does not mean tampering, or heresy.

Question for the MODERATOR of this forum: at what point do such accusations cross the line from being discussion, to becoming slander?

[ January 07, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I kinda figured you would not believe any of this.Just look @ the family of Alexandrian Per-versions for evedence..

Prove me wrong. Alexandria was the hot-spot of Philosophy & Gnostics,it is in EGYPT.God called his son OUT of Egypt(Matt 2) Jacob out of Egypt(Gen 49)ISRAEL out of Egypt(Exodus 15)& Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt(Exodus 13)God has a "not so great" view of Egypt(Gen 12:12,Exodus 2:23,Exodus3:9,Exodus3:17,Jer 46:19,Eze 29:9-10,Eze29:12,Eze 32:15,Joel 3:19..;Compared to Antioch,Syria where the first bible teachers were(Acts 13:1),and the first missionary trip originated(Acts 13:1-52)And the word"Christian" originated(Acts11:26). So you see, You have placed yourself as the final authority in all matters of faith & practice;accusing someone of slander is just a last ditch attempt to prove to yourself your right[titus 3:10]Where is your proof that I'm wrong??? Remember "slander," right??

[ January 07, 2003, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Brian,

I know I am not a moderator, but it appears that he is within the rules.

Quoting from Everybody read this...:

[ January 07, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

I'm the type of person who doesn't believe something just because someoneon the internet, whom I've never met, said it. I personally like to have a bit of verifiable evidence once in a while.

Not that I agree they are "per-versions" (which I think is againt board rules to call them that), I find no evidence in them that say these men you listed were heretics or tampered with manuscripts.

When you make an assertion, it is up to YOU to provide evidence for it, not for everyone else to prove you wrong. Otherwise, I could just sit back and say "Those men are NOT heretics - prove me wrong" and sit back and let you do all the work. The person who makes the assertion must provide the evidence, that's how it works.

So? At most, you have the "guilty-by-association" argument. The USA is the hot-spot for drug use, spouse abuse, robbery, pornography, and racism. Does that mean everyone from America is guily of those things?

Yes, after sending him TO Egypt to PRESERVE him.

Yes, all these things were first IN Egypt to come out from them. Alexandrian manuscripts, like all these GOOD things you mention, have ALSO come out of Egypt.

What does any of this have to do with manuscripts, and evidence about them?

By asking you for evidence (which you are unwilling and/or unable to provide), that means I have placed myself as the final authority??? What kind of logic is that?

I have not accused you of slander, Titus 3:10 is not about slander, and to accuse someone of slander when the make derogatory claims about someone when they have no evidence is to apply the very definition of the word. I have not yet accused you of this, I have simply asked you to provide evidence. If I accused YOU (or ANYONE, like the KJV translators, etc) of being heretics and tampering with manuscripts because of gnostic conspiracies, and could not provide any evidence other than "guilt by association", would *I* not be guilty of slander?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]He is not simply saying these men are "off base". I agree many of them were "off base". He is calling them heretics and saying they deliberately corrupted Biblical manuscripts to fit with gnostic teachings. That is a bit more serious of a claim.

 

And??? what's your point?? Does that bother you??

99.9%unwilling,;take it for what it is worth..Of course,I dont expect you to believe it anyway..you have already proven that..

Remember the name of the thread??

[ January 07, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Yes, actually. Very much. I do not like to see the word of God labelled as a "per-Version" just because you personally prefer a different translation.

Why make an assertion you are unwilling to support?

In the light of real evidence, I have changed my mind about a great many things.

Yes, it is about *manuscripts* from Egypt, not what certain verses in scripture say about Eypgt. I can find more verses in scripture that speak ill of Isreal than I can that speak of Egypt. What does that prove?

 

Brian, You have basically fallen into the trap of debating the absurd. JYD has no proof. He has gotten these things from some MAN, they soothed his itching ears, so he repeats them here as if they are historical facts.

The whole area around Asia minor including Antioch was filled with cults, gnostics, stoics, idol worshippers, etc. It will never occur to people of this mindset that the Antiochian mss that we have were primarily produced by the idolatrous Greek Orthodox Church. In this case, they will rightly see that it is the quality of their work, not their theology that matters. The same can be said for Erasmus and the KJV translators. They care not at all whether those contributing to the KJV were heretics by our standards. It only matters if they can label someone whose work underlies the MV's a heretic or corrupter of the Word.

 

Who told you that?? a MAN????

 

Who told you that?? a MAN????</font>[/QUOTE]No. Your actions and posts demonstrate that you employ a double standard. Your posts are proof enough.

You can look up the theology of the 17th century Church of England. Among other things, they practiced infant baptism by sprinking, taught the union of church and state authority, and persecuted Baptist of their era. The head of the translation committees, Bishop Andrewes, actually penned a sermon that says the eucharist was both sacrifice and sacrament.

... and yes, these ideas come from men... men who have done research and documented their sources.

 

Nope, my only standard is the A.V.

Remember"double standard";you were quoting What MEN said..2Tim 4:3-4(A.V.)

[ January 08, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Okay, I think the ridiculous point was crossed more than once on this thread. Of course history is the product of man.

The only way we know that Erasmus and Luther and Westcott and Hort and Arian and just about everyone else existed, is through the work of men throughout history.

We can be absolutely certain about the biblical revelation because it has God's stamp on it. The Bible does not mention Arian, or alot of people.

Using history is a worthy manner. Revising history to fit a doctrine is evil.