Final Authority before 1611?

[robycop3]

Scott J, I believe anyone who knows anything about the Scriptural mss agrees that the Alex mss are OLDER. Therefore, I asked Michelle how the OLDER mss could OMIT something found in LATER ones. Common sense would indicate material was ADDED to the later ones.

And whenever you, I, or anyone else points out something to Michelle, such as ,"The GREEK says..." she says, I have God's word in English, the KJV. therefore the Greek doesn't matter." BUT...NOW...the Greek DOES matter to her! She says all the MVs came from corrupt mss. If the Greek doesn't matter to her, why DOES it matter to her that in her opinion the MVs use corrupted Greek mss?

Hey, Ed Edwards! Here's another DOUBLE STANDARD for your list!

 

[Scott J]

Michelle, Why do you continue to avoid the Isaiah 61 v Luke 4 issue? Those text do not use the same words. Why?

One is Isaiah 61:1 as Jesus read it in the synagogue. The other is Isaiah 61:1 as the KJV translators translated it from their Hebrew texts.

If only one set of words are valid for any passage of scripture, these two passages should be identical down to the "jot and tittle". Why aren't they?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle said "By faith, I believe those in those countries, who are faithful followers of Jesus Christ, will have been provided the true and accurate word of God in their language without error. Your knowledge has proven nothing to me in regards to the facts and truth regarding the word of God, but only of your bias for corrupt texts and your attempts to justify them."

Natters:Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind and therefore facts are irrelevant."

Actually, she's acknowledging that the translations made from the Alex mss are true and accurate, as Ziggy said those lands to which he referred were using almost exclusively Bibles made from mss other than the Byz 'family'.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:First, you all need to stop looking at the scriptures in a critical way. It is blinding you. What we have in the scriptures, is exactly what Jesus said, as Luke recorded what came out of the mouth of Jesus.

But it's NOT identical with what's written in Isaiah! THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE FACT, FOUND IN YOUR OWN KJV!

You just don't wanna deal with it.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry Michelle, but straining is not gagging. Two entirely different words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michelle:So is "out" and "at", to which "out" gives the WRONG UNDERSTANDING of that verse.

No, it DOESN'T... "At" gives the wrong undderstanding because it's a wrong interpretation of the Greek.


Gagging is alot closer to the meaning than out.

To YOUR meaning, saying he was gagging because the gnat was still there. But the GREEK means "strain OUT".


Besides, I explained this to you in another post. You just, and yet again, deny the truth.

No, he denies your ridiculous spin.

 

[robycop3]

I guess Jesus blinked at the wrong time while reading and got confused. Or maybe he wanted to "delete" God from the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:Or maybe it is because Jesus is God and he gives the scriptures. Bet that never crossed your mind did it? Jesus gave us that verse of scripture from his mouth.

Yes...HE READ IT ALOUD! Even though He didn't NEED the scroll, He asked for it so anyone who didn't believe Him could see He had the scroll, and that His words were verbatim with what was written.

And there's NO DENYING that in the KJV the respective isaiah and Luke verses are not worded alike. THIS point, you're avoiding like the plague!

And here's another one for you to ponder, Michelle...Acts 8:32-33 as compared with Isaiah 53:7-8.(This was carefully compared by Archangel 7 a while back.)

Please read the surrounding verses so as not to overlook the context of the specific verses cited. Remember, Philip was there by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and nowhere does He tell Phil, "That gent's using a wrong version of Isaiah".

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:The TR began with the Apostles because it has been in existence from apostolic times right down to the present.

Then please tell us where there's a pre-Erasmus TR in existence, or present EVIDENCE that such a thing existed...unless by "TR" you mean something other than the "Textus Receptus".

 

[HankD]

I seem to find more verses from the OT quoted in the NT that disagree with their counterpart than agree, particularly in the Book of Matthew.

Here we have confirmed in the New Testament a fulfilled prophecy by Esaias the prophet concerning our blessed Lord.

Matthew 8
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Isaiah 53
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Since KJVO doctrine is that the KJV itself are all the “pure” words of God and “things which are different are not the same” how can these differences exist therefore between the two covers of the King James Bible?

Could it possibly be that God put His stamp of approval on a version of the OT that Matthew was using which was not 100% accurate (EEK!) with the original?

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Because God already provided His words for us accurately in our own language, and have NO NEED FOR THE GREEK/HEBREW ANYMORE.

Then, how can you say the MVs are corrupt because they're made from corrupt mss?

More DOUBLE STANDARDS:

"I don't need the mss for the KJV cuz I KNOW it'a 100% correct, but I DO need'em to say the MVs are corrupt."

Know what your WHOLE LINE of "reasoning" reminds me of, Michelle? It reminds me of some of the antics of HERMANN GOERING!

Goering had publicly stated in a radio broadcast, "Not one British bomb will fall on Germany. If one ever does, you can call me "Meier".(an insult)

Not long afterwards, the RAF bombed Germany. Goering refused to believe it. Taken by his staff to view the unmistakable remains of a shot-down British bomber, he screamed, "I'm your commander! And that British bomber DOES NOT EXIST! That's an ORDER...THAT BRITISH BOMBER DOES NOT EXIST!!

Needless to say, he refused to meet the bomber's captured crew, saying they were merely other British captured in land battles!(You may verify this by looking in "The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich"by William Shirer.)

YOU'RE acting almost JUST LIKE THAT, MICHELLE! You simply REFUSE that the EMPIRICAL, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE shown to you exists, EVEN WHEN IT'S FOUND IN THE KJV!!!!!!!!!!!

I certainly hope YOU don't end up like Goering did! For him, it's too late, but YOU still have time to renounce your nonsense and RIGHTLY divide, study, and use God's word as HE intended it to be used.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Scott J, I believe anyone who knows anything about the Scriptural mss agrees that the Alex mss are OLDER. Therefore, I asked Michelle how the OLDER mss could OMIT something found in LATER ones. Common sense would indicate material was ADDED to the later ones.
--------------------------------------------------

The older mss that underlines the mv's have been corrupted, as even the KJB translators admitted. This information is well known and I only need to know as to the importance of this discussion with you all. It is EVIDENT that the underlying texts are different than that of the underlying texts of the KJB because of the OMITTIONS AND ADDITIONS that are evident in comparison. This is a well known fact, and has nothing whatsover to do with my having to KNOW GREEK AND HEBREW. It is apparent in our own language the differences.

--------------------------------------------------
And whenever you, I, or anyone else points out something to Michelle, such as ,"The GREEK says..." she says, I have God's word in English, the KJV. therefore the Greek doesn't matter." BUT...NOW...the Greek DOES matter to her! She says all the MVs came from corrupt mss. If the Greek doesn't matter to her, why DOES it matter to her that in her opinion the MVs use corrupted Greek mss?
--------------------------------------------------


You are trying to say there are errors in the word of God, to which I know, and generations have known, and you must always refer to the Hebrew and Greek to try to prove you are correct in saying the KJB has errors. I do not need to know the Greek and Hebrew to know what God's word says, and to know that I have it perfectly in my own language. Your futile attempts to show the KJB has errors, is to only justify the obvious errors in the mv's. You must go to the origional languages in order to convince and deceive the naive that the lie is the truth. You will fail with me, each and every time (even though your vanity tells you otherwise) that God's word has errors in it. There are none. You can believe there is, but you are very WRONG. I have no need for the Hebrew and Greek language, ecspecially from those who try to make it say something opposite and contrary to what God has already provided in our own language. This seems very much like what the pharisees did, and the Roman Catholic priest did/do.

I have no knowledge of those languages, and I do not need them. God provided for me in my own language. You are putting the Hebrew and Greek language on the level of idolatry, in order to prove something that isn't the truth. No where in God's word does HE say that the Hebrew and Greek languages are to supercede my own, once it has been provided. The KJB mirrors these texts, as well as the other Bibles from them. The KJB improved the previous Bibles, but did not ALTER OR CHANGE them, as we see with the mv's today. You believe a lie, if you believe otherwise, because the evidence and facts of this are apparent to anyone who has eyes to see, and ears to hear.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Could it possibly be that God put His stamp of approval on a version of the OT that Matthew was using which was not 100% accurate (EEK!) with the original?

--------------------------------------------------

Since the scriptures were inspired by God, this statement is false. And another point to remember is that the New Testament is also God breathed. The Apostles did not write down what they thought, nor what they wanted, but what the Lord inspired them to write, to which has been accurately preserved, even until this very day, in our very language. The reason there seems to be confusion regarding the differences in the gospel accounts, to that of the Old testament, could also very well be because of this reason, and because God desired it to be this way, so that we are faithful to him, and trust him, and search and study out the matter, with faith first, not skeptisicm. Here is a wonderful passages for you all to contemplate:
John 16, 17

Matt. 11

25. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

2 Peter 3

14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

Askjo:The TR began with the Apostles because it has been in existence from apostolic times right down to the present.

Then please tell us where there's a pre-Erasmus TR in existence, or present EVIDENCE that such a thing existed...unless by "TR" you mean something other than the "Textus Receptus".

Actually Roby this is an accurate statement according to BOTH (or all three): Burgon and W&H.
I'm not saying that is factual because the proof is inconclusive.

Burgon, Wescott and Hort all agreed on this and called it the Traditional Text. W&H however claimed that it was "smoothed" and "conflated" by the Byzantine scribes (The Revsion Revised John Burgon).

Certain Byzantine mss were always held up as exemplars, texts of "high purity" of the several books of the NT. a conglomerate of these books were then know as The Traditional Text of the New Testament.

Was there an actual NT labeled and bound together as such since apostolic times? No, probably not there is no historical evidence of such (as far as I know) but it is possible. Some, including W&H said that this Traditional Text first appeared as a single unit in the later part of the 4th century.

Later corrections and refinements were made from members of scribal families (human) like Elivir, Stephanus, Beza actually binding then into a unit ending with the printing press version: the Scrivener TR in 1895 as the virtual reproduction of the NT (of this Traditional Text).

There is dispute of course concerning variants of Aleph/B and other uncials. It will be a long time IMO before this issue is resolved.

This post is obviously an over simplification of what happened.

In the mean time, if you wish you can read Burgon's books concerning the history of the "Traditional Text" by that same name, once a rare book but now republished, The Revision revised is also helpful.

BTW, Burgon was NOT KJVO and publicly stated in his writings that both the Greek and English text of the Traditional Text and AV were in need of correction.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I see our dear michelle has returned spewing her venom for all to see.

Totally disregarding the fact that there are presently King James Bibles currently published with differences between them.

"Things which are different are not the same".

HankD

 

[natters]

Interesting that we are on page 17 of this thread, with it about to be closed down soon, and the questions in the first two posts of this thread have not yet been directly answered.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have a feeling the next three pages will not yield an answer.

 

[Trotter]

Whoa! Roger, you must be a prophet, 'cause I forsee the same thing!

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
No, he denies your ridiculous spin.
--------------------------------------------------

No, you are the one's spinning, as the English word is "stain at", to which compliments the context of the passage. You are spinning it, by trying to say it means "out" by turning to your opinion of what the Greek, a foriegn language, means, to say the word of God is in error. You are spinning, not me. "Out" is incorrect, as is shown by the meaning of, and understanding of the truth in the context of that verse and passage. I believe it for what it says, and come away with the truth. You doubt this, and must turn to the Greek, in order to try to prove the opposite of the truth is the truth. You are spinning it, to prove a lie, against the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
No, he denies your ridiculous spin.
--------------------------------------------------

No, you are the one's spinning, as the English word is "stain at", to which compliments the context of the passage. You are spinning it, by trying to say it means "out" by turning to your opinion of what the Greek, a foriegn language, means, to say the word of God is in error. You are spinning, not me. "Out" is incorrect, as is shown by the meaning of, and understanding of the truth in the context of that verse and passage. I believe it for what it says, and come away with the truth. You doubt this, and must turn to the Greek, in order to try to prove the opposite of the truth is the truth. You are spinning it, to prove a lie, against the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

The truth = the choice of KJV translators

A lie = the choice of seemingly every other translation team EVER

 

[Trotter]

Michelle,

If I didn't know that you were absolutely serious I'd laugh out loud at your statement. That you actually believe it makes me want to cry.

You surpass all of the people that I have ever known who willingly remain rooted in their own delusions rather than admit that they are wrong.

I don't know who has fed you all this crap, but they have done a wonderful job of brainwashing you. Give them a pat on the back, OK?

The Greek that you scream about is what the KJV translators were using to come up with your precious idol. The word choice they made was not a great one, and with a couple of centuries' worth of change, it is down right ridiculous.

Straining "at" something brings to mind a toddler sitting on his pottie, "straining at" going pottie to get a treat. Yeah, this resembles it a lot.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[HankD]

You are spinning it, by trying to say it means "out" by turning to your opinion of what the Greek, a foriegn language, means, to say the word of God is in error.

One more time.

michelle the koine Greek is the language in which the Gospel was first given by our Father, it was not the native tongue of most of the world at the time, it was a foreign tongue, one of which people had considerable knowledge, but nonetheless a "foreign language".

The Church has always turned to the Greek and Hebrew as the inspired word of God to give us a translation in a new tongue or to update an already existing translation.

The KJV translators were no exception using the mss of the original tongues, diligently comparing their work with other translations.

When I preserve blackberry jelly, it doesn't turn to strawberry jelly no matter how long it sits on the shelf.

God has preserved His Word for us in Greek and Hebrew, they have never changed, not a jot or tittle.

HankD