Did God Die In 1611?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
But HOW can you maintain your position when the Bible(KJB)is SILENT concerning Alexandria and the word of God!!???

The Bible does not declare in any place where the most accurate copies of the NT would come from. But even agreeing with your conclusion, which BTW I do in large measure, you are still about a million miles away from proving some special position for the KJV. The NKJV is an accurate translation of the TR as are the LITV, MKJV, Geneva, and possibly a few others.

The WEB and EMTV based on the majority texts and available on E-Sword also appear to be good.

But the death blow to your whole presumption is that some of the TR's readings don't appear to have originated anywhere near Antioch, Syria.

The Bible makes it plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium).FACT!

That is a ridiculous assertion.

First, all of the texts classified as Byzantine were not found in that immediate area.

Second, several of the Epistles as well as Luke and Mark were probably written in Rome. The transportation/communication between Rome and Alexandria was just as routine as to Antioch and probably a great deal more significant and frequent. Further, Paul wrote several epistles from Corinth (which has an almost completely negative portrayal in scripture). From Corinth, it isn't much further to Alexandria than to Antioch if at all.

In fact, the only books of the Bible that appear to have originated in Antioch are John's gospel and epistles. All others could have been communicated just as easily to Alexandria as to Byzantium.

BTW, where does Acts make it "plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium)."

To Ape what you say:I want Biblical proof for your position!

With regard to a location, there is as much biblical proof for either position as there is for KJVOnlyism... NADA.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
But the death blow to your whole presumption is that some of the TR's readings don't appear to have originated anywhere near Antioch, Syria.

Uh, Antioch, in Syria, is not the sum total of the Byzantine Empire.

First, all of the texts classified as Byzantine were not found in that immediate area.

Don't forget, the Byzantine Empire, as with all political entities, grew for several centuries, then shrunk for several more, before finally falling completely.

In fact, ALL of the cities mentioned, INCLUDING Alexandria, were, at one time or another, part of the Byzantine Empire.

Second, several of the Epistles as well as Luke and Mark were probably written in Rome.

That may be true, but even Rome was part of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th century.

All others could have been communicated just as easily to Alexandria as to Byzantium.

All the others were, in fact, addressed to cities in the Byzantine Empire for most of its existence. Alexandria was even part of the Byzantine Empire for a short time between 475 and 565 AD.

 

[Craigbythesea]

This empire discussion is nothing but nonsense. Neither the Bible nor church history tell us where any of the 27 original documents were even one year after they were written. The only real evidence regarding the genuineness of the reading of any Greek manuscript is in the manuscripts themselves, and in corroborating manuscripts (quotes of N.T. manuscripts in other ancient manuscripts, and ancient translations of N.T. manuscripts), and that evidence tells us that the Alexandrian text-type is more ancient, not just because the manuscripts themselves are more ancient (for the most part), but because this can be deduced from their content. And the older the writing, the less opportunity there was for copyist error.

That evidence tells us many other things also, including the nature of copyist errors, which groups of copyists were prone to make which kinds of errors, and many clues to recognize copyist errors. And almost all of this evidence points very strongly to the Alexandrian text-type being closer to the original documents than the Byzantine text-type.

Where the manuscripts were found means nothing because we know absolutely nothing about how or why they got there. Where they were originally written or sent to, therefore, can mean nothing.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:

There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.

I do not have the knowledge to do this. However, in the Bible, God saved his people(Israel) from Pharaoh, who was in Egypt. Alexandria is in Egypt, so the way I see it is, no good thing came from Egypt. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it's pure eisegesis (reading something into the text that's just not there). I could just as easily argue that manuscripts from Syria (the region of Antioch) can't be trusted on Biblical grounds, since the first mention of Syria in the Bible is with reference to Laban, the man who deceived Jacob by marrying him to the wrong woman (Gen. 25:20, Gen. 29:20-26). Should we then be suspicious of Antiochian manuscripts because they deceive us into accepting additions that were not originally in God's Word?

I could also point out that Egypt is the Biblical place of God's providential preservation. The first mention of Egypt in the Bible occurs when Abraham and his family are in danger of starving to death because of famine, so they go to Egypt for food and their lives are preserved (Gen. 12:10). When Joseph was in danger of being killed by his own brothers, he ended up in Egypt where his life was preserved (Gen. 37:28). When Jacob and his family were in danger of starving to death because of a famine, they went to Egypt for food and their lives were preserved (Gen. 42:1-3). And of course, the first mention of Egypt in the New Testament is as the place where Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to escape Herod's slaughter, and where Jesus' life was preserved. I could then conclude that since God chose Egypt as the place where His Living Word (Jn. 1:1) was providentially preserved, then obviously God has told us through this that Egypt is the place where the written word of God has also been providentially preserved. With such a strong Biblical warrant we can trust those Egyptian manuscripts implicitly -- right?

(Isn't eisegesis a wonderful thing?

)

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

The English word "study" is one of those words in the KJV that now has a very different meaning. The word "study" as used in the KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 then meant to "be diligent." Paul is not telling Timothy to study the Bible; he is telling him to be diligent in his Christian walk, displaying conduct showing that he is approved by God, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Even a quick glance at the Greek text will show this to be so.) </font>[/QUOTE]Now this is a prime example of why the modern versions are not the complete word of God. The passage is talking about the word of God, hint the last four words, "the word of truth." There are divisions in the word of God that you must study to be "diligent" in your Christian walk to be approved unto God.

Throw away those modern books and pick up the word of God, the King James Bible.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

The English word "study" is one of those words in the KJV that now has a very different meaning. The word "study" as used in the KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 then meant to "be diligent." Paul is not telling Timothy to study the Bible; he is telling him to be diligent in his Christian walk, displaying conduct showing that he is approved by God, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Even a quick glance at the Greek text will show this to be so.) </font>[/QUOTE]Now this is a prime example of why the modern versions are not the complete word of God. The passage is talking about the word of God, hint the last four words, "the word of truth." There are divisions in the word of God that you must study to be "diligent" in your Christian walk to be approved unto God.

Throw away those modern books and pick up the word of God, the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Craig is correct. The Greek verb in 2 Tim. 3:15 is spoudazw, which according to the BDAG lexicon means (1) "to proceed quickly, hurry, hasten;" (2) "to speed up a process, expedite;" (3) "to be especially conscientious in discharging an obligation, be zealous/eager, take pains, make every effort, be conscientious." It's the same verb used in 2 Tim. 4:9, which the KJV translates as "Do thy *diligence* to come shortly unto me;" and in 2 Tim. 4:21, which the KJV translates as "Do thy *diligence* to come before winter."

So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

...all of the NT was directed to or near Byzantium, and none of the NT was directed to or near Alexandria.

It stands to reason that the areas to which the NT writings were initially directed would more likely be the source of the most correct copies of those writings, and, with the presence of the original writings, destroying old and damaged copies would be more likely as the original was still available for copying. It was only in Alexandria that the old, damaged, and poorly copied apographs were kept in storage.

Actually, there are excellent reasons why the copies from Alexandria are likely to be superior to copies from apostolic regions (like Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome). (1) Copies from apostolic regions were more likely to be contaminated by additions from early oral tradition which was regarded as having comparable authority to written documents in the days before the NT canon was established. Alexandria would have been spared this contaminating influence precisely because it *wasn't* an apostolic center. (2) From the earliest times, Alexandrian scholars *as scholars* had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text. No such interest is evident in the transmission of texts from other regions, were theologically motivated "orthodox corruptions" abound.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
Actually, there are excellent reasons why the copies from Alexandria are likely to be superior to copies from apostolic regions (like Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome). (1) Copies from apostolic regions were more likely to be contaminated by additions from early oral tradition which was regarded as having comparable authority to written documents in the days before the NT canon was established. Alexandria would have been spared this contaminating influence precisely because it *wasn't* an apostolic center. (2) From the earliest times, Alexandrian scholars *as scholars* had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text. No such interest is evident in the transmission of texts from other regions, were theologically motivated "orthodox corruptions" abound.

Let's see. The Byzantine text is a conflated text displaying additions from oral tradition, so, therefore, this proves the longer readings of the Byzantine text are the result of additions from oral tradition.

Uh, isn't that called "circular reasoning" when the KJVOs do it?

And, Alexandrian scholars had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text but the orthodox, Apostolic groups to whom the autographs were addressed and who had an absolute belief in the inspiration and unchangeable nature of the scriptures had no such interest.

Uh huh! Sure!

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text.

Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself.

 

[Scott J]

Back to nitpicking again eh Skan?...

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
But the death blow to your whole presumption is that some of the TR's readings don't appear to have originated anywhere near Antioch, Syria.

Uh, Antioch, in Syria, is not the sum total of the Byzantine Empire.</font>[/QUOTE] No. However, A-A has persistently misused scripture in his quest for proof that Alexandria = BAD/Antioch = GOOD.

The Byzantine Empire didn't even exist until 200+ years after the writing of scripture making the whole of your post absolutely meaningless with regard to his argument and my rebuttal. The only "Byzantium" relevant to our interaction is the one contemporary to the writing of the NT. Further, no one has claimed that any of the Bible was written from or to the city of Byzantium. A-A is wrong all the way around and I have no earthly idea why you felt compelled to jump in and "correct my historical errors"... which weren't errors at all.

His contention at no point took in the full panorama of world or Byzantine history nor did my response.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />First, all of the texts classified as Byzantine were not found in that immediate area.

Don't forget, the Byzantine Empire, as with all political entities, grew for several centuries, then shrunk for several more, before finally falling completely.

In fact, ALL of the cities mentioned, INCLUDING Alexandria, were, at one time or another, part of the Byzantine Empire.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. And part of what became the Byzantine Empire was once part of the Egyptian Empire to include the area where Antioch was eventually built and that actually before the writing of the NT..... So what?

My rebuttal was in response to A-A's attempt to make geography a qualifier for Bible mss evidence. There was no attempt on my part nor need on your part to enter into a discussion of non-issues.

He said God's Word was "rooted" in Byzantium. I pointed out that the originals were written from dispersed locations and that they could have been carried just as easily to the dispersed Jewish Christians in Egypt and northern Africa just as easily as to the whole of Asia minor.

I am sure that A-A knows that the Byzantine Empire was a merger of the eastern Roman Empire and the ancient catholic church under Constantine that eventually resulted in grievous doctrinal errors.

All the others were, in fact, addressed to cities in the Byzantine Empire for most of its existence. Alexandria was even part of the Byzantine Empire for a short time between 475 and 565 AD.

Once again, your point is absolutely meaningless. The Empire didn't even start until well after the originals had been copied and very widely distributed.

A-A is claiming that the BT is superior based on nothing more than geography. I am not claiming that the CT is better or even as good. But it is not condemned by its association with Alexandria either.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text.

Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself. </font>[/QUOTE]You can buy a copy of the TR. While not a facsimile of the originals, it is one step closer than the KJV.

 

[skanwmatos]

HomeBound, you seem to have missed my follow up posts regarding the changes made in the KJV between 1611 and 1762/1769. I am sure it was just an oversight on your part, and not a deliberate attempt to avoid the questions. Here, I will repost the two responses you obviously missed:

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I thought I did.

You didn't.

The printing of the KJB had printing/spelling errors that was fixed.

We are not talking about typos and other printer's errors. We are talking about entirely different words. I even listed them for you.

I believe what I know by faith that the 1769 KJB that I use is God's inspired, preserved word, just like the 1611, Geneva, Tyndale's, etc.

Wait a minute! In your "answer" you said the AV1611 was wrong and the KJV1762/1769 was correct. If the AV 1611 was wrong how could it be the "inspired, preserved word?"

God's message was not lost because of these petty errors that you cling to.

I am not talking about spelling errors. I am talking about entire different words! You said the AV1611 was WRONG! Now you say "God's message" was not lost, Does that mean you believe only the message and not the WORDS were inspired and preserved?

I truthfully don't know how to explain why the spelling and printing errors occured.

Please, Homebound, don't be deceptive. I did not list any spelling or printer's errors. I listed words from the AV1611 which are DIFFERENT from the words of the KJV1762/1769.

God uses man to relay his message. Just as you witness to someone today, your witness may not be perfect, but the word of God is. Maybe as I grow, I'll have a better answer for you.

So, you are saying that you don't know which bible is the perfect, inspired, preserved word of God, the AV1611 or the KJV1762/1769? If you don't know which one is right, how can you trust the one you are using?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The Byzantine Empire didn't even exist until 200+ years after the writing of scripture making the whole of your post absolutely meaningless with regard to his argument and my rebuttal.

Uh, no, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts come from the Byzantine Empire. That is probably why that text type is called "The Byzantine Text."

The only "Byzantium" relevant to our interaction is the one contemporary to the writing of the NT.

No, we are not talking about the autographs, but the apographs, the copies, and the vast majority of the copies were copied within the borders of the Byzantine Empire when the Byzantine Empire was at its zenith.

Further, no one has claimed that any of the Bible was written from or to the city of Byzantium. A-A is wrong all the way around and I have no earthly idea why you felt compelled to jump in and "correct my historical errors"... which weren't errors at all.

The Byzantine Empire was not limited to the Greek city of Byzantium, but rather encompassed the entire Mediterranean coast of southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, at one time. And I corrected you because you seemed to be laboring under a misconception. In fact you still seem to be doing so.

My rebuttal was in response to A-A's attempt to make geography a qualifier for Bible mss evidence. There was no attempt on my part nor need on your part to enter into a discussion of non-issues.

I can understand why you would want to make geography a "non-issue" seeing as it mitigates so strongly against your chosen position. Even the best of the textual critics recognize the geographical arguments as being very strong!

He said God's Word was "rooted" in Byzantium.

Yes, he did. And he was right!

I pointed out that the originals were written from dispersed locations and that they could have been carried just as easily to the dispersed Jewish Christians in Egypt and northern Africa just as easily as to the whole of Asia minor.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts were copied in the Byzantine Empire.

Once again, your point is absolutely meaningless. The Empire didn't even start until well after the originals had been copied and very widely distributed.

All of the existing copies, with very few exceptions, date to the time of Byzantine ascendancy.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
The Byzantine Empire didn't even exist until 200+ years after the writing of scripture making the whole of your post absolutely meaningless with regard to his argument and my rebuttal.

Uh, no, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts come from the Byzantine Empire. That is probably why that text type is called "The Byzantine Text."

</font>[/QUOTE] Are you being intentionally obtuse? Read my statement especially "the writing of scripture"... as opposed to the copying of scripture.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The only "Byzantium" relevant to our interaction is the one contemporary to the writing of the NT.

No, we are not talking about the autographs, but the apographs, the copies, and the vast majority of the copies were copied within the borders of the Byzantine Empire when the Byzantine Empire was at its zenith.

</font>[/QUOTE] That is not what we were talking about. He said the Word of God was rooted in Byzantium.

...and "correct my historical errors"... which weren't errors at all.

The Byzantine Empire was not limited to the Greek city of Byzantium, but rather encompassed the entire Mediterranean coast of southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, at one time. And I corrected you because you seemed to be laboring under a misconception. In fact you still seem to be doing so.

[/quote][/qb] Nope. If this is what you thing then it is you that is laboring under a misconception... one of your own creation when you jumped to conclusions about the object of my response to A-A.

There was no attempt on my part nor need on your part to enter into a discussion of non-issues.

I can understand why you would want to make geography a "non-issue" seeing as it mitigates so strongly against your chosen position.[/quote][/qb] For the record, it does not mitigate against my chosen position. I actually prefer the Majority position because I find the four fundamentals of the critical text method to be flawed.

In particular, the harder readings are not necessarily to be preferred. I had a large staff of data entry clerks working for me in a previous job. From that experience, it is my suspicion that if something does not fit or looks wrong... it usually is.

Even the best of the textual critics recognize the geographical arguments as being very strong!

Not in the terms being used by A-A nor in the context of my interaction with him. You simply put your opinion in without taking the context into consideration.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He said God's Word was "rooted" in Byzantium.

Yes, he did. And he was right!</font>[/QUOTE] No he wasn't. We have already established that the Byzantine Empire did not exist when "the root" of scripture was established and no letters originated or were written to Byzantium.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts were copied in the Byzantine Empire.

But none of the originals were. Nor were any copies for the first 200 years or so since the Empire didn't exist. That is fairly simply Skan.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Once again, your point is absolutely meaningless. The Empire didn't even start until well after the originals had been copied and very widely distributed.

All of the existing copies, with very few exceptions, date to the time of Byzantine ascendancy.

</font>[/QUOTE]Didn't say anything about copies. We are talking about the "root" of scripture.

 

[gb93433]

Some have made God out to be dead with their religious nonsense while others openly proclaim His resurrection.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Are you being intentionally insulting?

That is not what we were talking about. He said the Word of God was rooted in Byzantium.

So you are saying that the copies are NOT the word of God? And, since the originals are gone, we no longer have the word of God?

If this is what you thing then it is you that is laboring under a misconception... one of your own creation when you jumped to conclusions about the object of my response to A-A.

Well, I was responding to what AA actually SAID rather than what you mis-characterized him as having said.

No he wasn't. We have already established that the Byzantine Empire did not exist when "the root" of scripture was established and no letters originated or were written to Byzantium.

I see. So you redefined "rooted in" to fit your argument rather than using it in the context AA was using it?

So, if the autographs were NOT sent to cities later identified as being in the Byzantine Empire, where do you think they were sent?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text.

Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself. </font>[/QUOTE]You can buy a copy of the TR. While not a facsimile of the originals, it is one step closer than the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, how do you know? Archangel said, "original source text," that is what I want to see. If you don't have it, your arguement is just as good as mine.

 

[David J]

Homebound,

Please answer Skans questions and show us how you know which KJV is right. It seems that you are avoiding these questions.

How do you prove that the 1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong? Rememeber that things that are different are not the same.

Did God make a boo boo in 1611?

I expect KJVO spin yet again.....

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No answer is forthcoming

"Things that are different are not the same unless we say they are the same" would be the only honest answer.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

Actually, there are excellent reasons why the copies from Alexandria are likely to be superior to copies from apostolic regions (like Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome). (1) Copies from apostolic regions were more likely to be contaminated by additions from early oral tradition which was regarded as having comparable authority to written documents in the days before the NT canon was established. Alexandria would have been spared this contaminating influence precisely because it *wasn't* an apostolic center. (2) From the earliest times, Alexandrian scholars *as scholars* had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text. No such interest is evident in the transmission of texts from other regions, were theologically motivated "orthodox corruptions" abound.

Let's see. The Byzantine text is a conflated text displaying additions from oral tradition, so, therefore, this proves the longer readings of the Byzantine text are the result of additions from oral tradition.

Uh, isn't that called "circular reasoning" when the KJVOs do it?

</font>[/QUOTE]No, what proves that the Byzantine text contains later additions is the textual evidence itself (e.g., the Pericope Adultera, which displays layers of addition and expansion over time even *within* the Byzantine textual stream). My earlier comment is intended to show *how* and *why* those later additions would have been more likely to be found in Byzantine and "Western" sources than in Alexandrian sources.

And, Alexandrian scholars had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text...

Yes. Alexandrian scholarship and methods go back to pre-Christian times. As *scholars*, the Alexandrians wished to preserve the purest form of *any* text, regardless of whether that text consisted of the writings of Homer or the writings of the apostle Paul. Since they were more concerned about philology that theology, their overriding aim was accuracy of transmission with minimal theological bias.

...but the orthodox, Apostolic groups to whom the autographs were addressed and who had an absolute belief in the inspiration and unchangeable nature of the scriptures had no such interest.

While this was true for the text of the OT, there's no evidence that the earliest Christians had any such "absolute belief" in the "unchangeable nature" of the NT *in the earliest centuries*. Scriptural citations in the early apostolic fathers show very little concern for precise wording of the NT text, which is hardly consistent with the view that they regarded NT writings as "unchangeable." All evidence we have in the early apostolic sources indicates that the NT was a fluid "living text" often influenced by oral traditions.