"Corrupt Texts"

[Pastor_Bob]

To believe in a corrupted text does not necessitate the belief that any doctrines have been eliminated from the text. It does, however, represent a belief that some doctrines have been weakened or diluted. As I stated above, I believe the Gnostic influence in Alexandria contributed greatly to the weakening of some major Bible doctrines; the deity of Christ being but one of them.

A crafty enemy would not eliminate all the good from any counterfeit that he was trying to present as genuine. A counterfeit artist tries to make the fake money look as much like the original as possible. The enemy in the parable of the wheat and the tares did not remove all the wheat; he simply sowed tares in among the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30).

To remove all references to the deity of Christ would surely cause great alarm. So, instead of eliminating them altogether, they were randomly omitted by the Gnostic theologians in Alexandria. Unfortunately, textual critics in more recent centuries ignored the omissions by these Gnostics.

Here are but a few examples:
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV) CT translations substitute “he” for “God.”

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (KJV) The CT omits “Christ is come in the flesh.”

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(KJV) CT Translations substitute “holy one” for “Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV) The CT eliminates this verse altogether.

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (KJV) The CT omits “of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So no modern English Bible translation denies the Deity of Christ ? Is that your view since you charge me with distorting your stance ?

Yes, that is my view. You can quote me as saying that no modern English version, that I am familiar with, denies the deity of Christ.

You are as hard to nail down as jelly to the wall .

All you have to do is quote me directly instead of quoting me as saying what you think I believe. I really think you have some misconceptions as to what I and other KJVOs actually believe.

 

[TCGreek]

To believe in a corrupted text does not necessitate the belief that any doctrines have been eliminated from the text. It does, however, represent a belief that some doctrines have been weakened or diluted. As I stated above, I believe the Gnostic influence in Alexandria contributed greatly to the weakening of some major Bible doctrines; the deity of Christ being but one of them.

1. At best, this is but a perception filtered through tainted lenses.

A crafty enemy would not eliminate all the good from any counterfeit that he was trying to present as genuine. A counterfeit artist tries to make the fake money look as much like the original as possible. The enemy in the parable of the wheat and the tares did not remove all the wheat; he simply sowed tares in among the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30).

2. Was Jesus pointing to the CT? BTW, Marcion wasn't bashful when it came to his anti-semitism.

To remove all references to the deity of Christ would surely cause great alarm. So, instead of eliminating them altogether, they were randomly omitted by the Gnostic theologians in Alexandria. Unfortunately, textual critics in more recent centuries ignored the omissions by these Gnostics.

3. See the above.

Here are but a few examples:
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV) CT translations substitute “he” for “God.”

4. Yet it is crystal clear who is in question here. The reader only has to turn to Matt 1:23; John 1:1-5, 4, to know that Jesus Christ is truly God.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (KJV) The CT omits “Christ is come in the flesh.”

5. Why didn't the CT omit it in 1 John 2:22?

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(KJV) CT Translations substitute “holy one” for “Christ, the Son of the living God.”

6. Why did the CT omit the same reference in Acts 3:14 in reference to Christ?

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV) The CT eliminates this verse altogether.[/QOUTE]

7. Why didn't the CT omit Rom 10:9, 10?

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (KJV) The CT omits “of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

8. Why didn't the CT omit all "our Lord Jesus Christ" from the NT text?

***Edited.

 

[EdSutton]

BTW, Marcion was bashful when it came to his anti-semitism.

Compared to whom??

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

Compared to whom??

Ed

Ed, I edited it to read "wasn't bashful." Sorry about that. Perhaps that might help.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

1. At best, this is but a perception filtered through tainted lenses.

Do you disagree that Clement of Alexandria and his successors were in fact Gnostics who denied the deity of Christ?

2. Was Jesus pointing to the CT?

It matters not to what He was pointing. The principle remains the same.

4. Yet it is crystal clear who is in question here. The reader only has to turn to Matt 1:23; John 1:1-5, 4, to know that Jesus Christ is truly God.
5. Why didn't the CT omit it in 1 John 2:22?
6. Why did the CT omit the same reference in Acts 3:14 in reference to Christ?
7. Why didn't the CT omit Rom 10:9, 10?
8. Why didn't the CT omit all "our Lord Jesus Christ" from the NT text?

I already answered these questions.

 

[TCGreek]

Do you disagree that Clement of Alexandria and his successors were in fact Gnostics who denied the deity of Christ?

.

1. Do you have sources to prove that Clement of Alexandria was Gnostic?

2. Let me give you a few quotes that disproves your charge:

"He is God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand. And with the form of God, He is God."

"O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father and the Father in the Son... God the Word, who became man for our sakes."

"Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one--that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God."

3. I will say, however, that Clement of Alexandria made some dubious statements about Christ and His divinity.

 

[Trotter]

Were these left out of the Alexandrian, or added to the Byzantine? And how, exactly can we be sure either way?

Basically, before I acceot anything I need something that will stadn up to scrutiny. Saying "such-and-such" quoted it is not proof, as others probably quoted the other. What proof is there for deletions versus insertions?

 

[Rippon]

You can quote me as saying that no modern English version, that I am familiar with, denies the deity of Christ.

Do you also agree that most modern versions do not diminish the great doctrines of the Bible ? They do not diminish the Deity of Christ , the virgin birth , the eternality of Christ , and his incarnation etc. ?

Since you accept the TR ( in its 20-30 forms ) -- do you also accept the idea that it needs revision as Dean Burgon did ?

Since you accept the 1769 Blayney KJ Version , logically you must accept the idea that it is acceptable for revision .

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Do you also agree that most modern versions do not diminish the great doctrines of the Bible ? They do not diminish the Deity of Christ , the virgin birth , the eternality of Christ , and his incarnation etc. ?

I answered this very clearly in post 21

Since you accept the TR ( in its 20-30 forms ) -- do you also accept the idea that it needs revision as Dean Burgon did ?

Yes and No

Since you accept the 1769 Blayney KJ Version , logically you must accept the idea that it is acceptable for revision .

Is that right?

 

[Rippon]

Do you also agree that most modern versions do not diminish the great doctrines of the Bible ? They do not diminish the Deity of Christ , the virgin birth , the eternality of Christ , and his incarnation etc. ?

So please inform of us of instances where any of say the NASBU , ESV , TNIV , HCSB and NLTse minimize these doctrines . Methinks you are absolutely wrong .

 

[TCGreek]

Do you also agree that most modern versions do not diminish the great doctrines of the Bible ? They do not diminish the Deity of Christ , the virgin birth , the eternality of Christ , and his incarnation etc. ?

Since you accept the TR ( in its 20-30 forms ) -- do you also accept the idea that it needs revision as Dean Burgon did ?

Since you accept the 1769 Blayney KJ Version , logically you must accept the idea that it is acceptable for revision .

I know I could count on you to keep this debate honest. :thumbs:

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So please inform of us of instances where any of say the NASBU , ESV , TNIV , HCSB and NLTse minimize these doctrines . Methinks you are absolutely wrong .

Examples have been offered time and again and have been either totally rejected or explained away with the same rationalism that omitted them in the first place. I've no time to travel down the road that has been traveled on numerous occasions only to be met with cynicism. To a serious seeker, I would gladly take the time and effort. However, I have better ways to spend my time than offering statements that will later appear as conclusions and positions that are not my own.

 

[Askjo]

1. Do you have sources to prove that Clement of Alexandria was Gnostic?

History agrees with Pastor Bob because Clement would not hand down the Christian teachings, but he clouded them with pagan philosophy. Tatian, a follower of the Gnostic heresy, instructed Clement who started the school at Alexandria. This school taught the gnosticism.

 

[TCGreek]

History agrees with Pastor Bob because Clement would not hand down the Christian teachings, but he clouded them with pagan philosophy. Tatian, a follower of the Gnostic heresy, instructed Clement who started the school at Alexandria. This school taught the gnosticism.

I've provided quotes. How about you guys providing some quotes? Only fair!

 

[Ed Edwards]

I've provided quotes. How about you guys providing some quotes? Only fair!

I've checked the 'quotes' on-line.

The deep-KJVO sources ONLY can support their claims.

Historical (non-Religious sources, Liberal Religious sources, Evangelical Religious sources, Moderate Religious Sources, Fundamentalist Religious Sources, and non-radical KJVO sources all disagree with the deep-KJVO sources. Therefore I conclude that the deep-KJVO sources are incorrect. So I'm sure there will no quotes coming save from radical-KJVOs.


Oh yes, Chick: The Comic Guru is a good source of deep-KJVO quotes -- if you want to base your Doctrine on comic books.

 

[readmore]

...if you want to base your Doctrine on comic books.

You laugh, but...

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards:
// ...i f you want to base your Doctrine on comic books.//

Readmore: // You laugh, but... //

1984: Tee Hee

1994:

2004:

I laugh to keep from crying.

You laugh and the brethren laugh with you;
you cry and you cry alone and your cereal gets soggy

I have the whole set of Firefly on DVD. I didn't watch it on cable.

 

[Rippon]

So please inform of us of instances where any of say the NASBU , ESV , TNIV , HCSB and NLTse minimize these doctrines . Methinks you are absolutely wrong .

PB , I am serious . Inform us of doctrine-diminishment in these versions . If you can't furnish any proof then say so . Yes , I already know the answer , but I am asking you anyway .
The versions I cited do not in any way lessen any doctrine that the KJV ( in its many forms ) has on its pages. As a matter of fact a number of the MV's that I have mentioned express scriptural truths in a clearer fashion than does the KJV .

 

[Ed Edwards]

I have so much faith in God I believe that God uses what the world's-loosers call 'corrupt Texts' to MAGNIFY His Written Word.

God's written word is like a holograph - when the lazer light of the Holy Spirit shines on even a 14% shard of God's written word - the whole Gospel is STILL THERE.

(note the use of a simile ['like' makes it past a metaphor] word picture to explain athe truth of God's Written Word)