How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

A lie? Last time I questioned you but you are incapable to answer them. You keep saying, "a lie, a slander" to me. I never see how you answered directly to the factual evidences.

His answer is like a detour, but never arrived at the point.

 

Unless I am wrong, the majority text, the critical text AND the TR do NOT have the name "Jesus" in the original Greek.

Care to elaborate where it might have come from? (Vulgate maybe?) </font>[/QUOTE]Massive manuscripts had "Jesus." A few MSS removed, "Jesus."

 

SOME Greek manuscripts said "He". Others said "Jesus". Why did some "omit" his holy name? And why do you keep changing the topic? I'm still ready to post that reply about Westcott and Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]Matt. 8:24, for example.

1526 New Testament said, "he."

1611 New Testament said, "he."

Tell me, why did modern versions disagree with 1526 New testament?

 

Askjo you are a waste of my time. Consider yourself shunned by me.

Sorry but you never answer questions and you don't have the integrity to be corrected.

You are not interested in any real discussion therefore I'll just ignore you from now on.

Prove me wrong and correct yourself and then I will discuss things with you. As long as you twist and lie I don't really have time for you.

Your brother in the Lord,
David J. Horn

 

Burgon prefered the Traditional Text, W&H felt that Aleph/B more accurately reflected the original text.

HankD

 

He is more interested in trying to be right than finding the truth.

 

Askjo: // Christian man said, "The homosexuality is ok"

What does this quotation from him mean to you?//

If the Christian man said: "My best Christian friends
are gay boys and lezzy girls. The homosexuality
is ok I may even be homosexual myself someday."

Then i'd say this person had an unchristian view
of homoexuality. This viewpoint
doesn't make one bit of
difference about their ability to know stuff like:
1. how to balance a checkbook
2. how to translate Hebrew to English

If the Christian man said: //Some people say
"The homosexuality is ok" but NOT me//
Then i'd think they had a good Christian view
of homosexuality. This viewpoint
doesn't make one bit of
difference about their ability to know stuff like:
1. how to balance a checkbook
2. how to translate Hebrew to English

 

May God is big enough to preserve His Holy
Written Word (the Bible) despite all those
who think they are helping Him.

 

It means what it says. That Sunday school teacher does not believe in the book of Genesis. However, that is NOT EVEN REMOTELY what Westcott said. If you had actually looked up the quote in context you would see that he did believe in the book of Genesis. Notice Westcott did NOT say he didn't think it was "true", he said "literal", and then only referring to the first 3 chapters, not the entire book. "true" and "literal" have entirely different meaning (you really should get yourself a dictionary, Askjo). He, like many solid orthodox Christians before and after him, believe that the first bit of Genesis is not strictly literal documentation, but is poetical in form but still entirely true ("a thousand times more true", in fact, is what Westcott said later in the quote.)

If you would stop repeating the butchered quotes provided by those with a negative agenda, and instead looked up the quote for yourself, this would be glaringly obvious to you. But alas, you are unwilling to deal with this honestly.

BTW, neither your quote, nor the few Ed found on various KJV-only sites, get the quote exactly correct - and all of them stop short of providing the rest of the quote that explain what Westcott actually means. What does that tell you?

I can provide the whole quote to anyone interested. Except Askjo, until he at least acknowledges some of my previous questions and comments.

 

Natters: "BTW, neither your quote, nor the few Ed
found on various KJV-only sites, get the quote
exactly correct - and all of them stop short
of providing the rest of the quote that explain
what Westcott actually means. What does that tell you?"

That deceit is sometimes more common than
truth among KJVO#3s, KJVO#4s, and KJVO$5s.

 

In other words Mr. Ed, all of us except you, huh?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Give it to us.

 

Some examples are for you to read here:

A Christian man said, "The homosexuality is ok" </font>[/QUOTE] If he actually said it then it would mean that he had an unbiblical view of homosexuality.

However, if it were a case of lifting a quote out of context like you are doing then it would mean that whoever quoted the man was being dishonest.

For instance, let's say the whole quote was "The world says homosexuality is OK" but you quoted him as you did above, the sin would be yours- not his.

This is exactly what is going on here Askjo. No matter how good or bad Westcott was, the sin on this matter is still yours. You have lifted a phrase out of a quote that misrepresents what the man actually said. That is dishonesty and you should repent rather than evade.

Because they looked at the evidence and came to different conclusions. Neither believed what you believe. In fact, both denied what you believe.

 

Thank you for finally admitting it.

 

I'm afraid your intellect runs away with simple logic.

If Genesis is only "poetical", but truth, then one would surmise that Moses didn't ever really speak with God on Mt . Sinai, he was just writing peotry throughout the Pentetauch, thus allowing an element of error to creep in, SATANIC BELIEF SYSTEM!!!! ALERT!! ALERT!! WARNING WILL ROBINSON!! Thus Westcott wasn't right, or he was not really a Christian, but the seed of you know who.

 

Give it to us. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]"Give it to them", I don't want any part with some one who feels they have authority over Greek above and beyond the Greeks themselves.

 

First, the comment was about the first 3 chapters, not the entire book or the entire "Pentetauch" (sic).

Second, poetical does not mean untrue. Nor would it be "thus allowing an element of error to creep in, SATANIC BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!" unless you are willing to attribute the same problem with the entire books of Psalms and Song of Solomon, and other passages of scripture which are poetical.

Third, salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ, not one's understanding of the form of the first three chapters of Genesis, unless you are aware of some new gospel and new requirements of salvation the rest of us aren't.

 

I'll post it, along with some other related quotes, later tonight.

 

Correct!

I do not talk about the context. I suppose, for example, that you and I chatted each other. This context does not include our talking here. I said to you, "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" What do you think of this quotation when you hear what I said?

Disagree.

Ok, which is right? Burgon or Westcott?