-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
KJV and the modern versions
- Thread starter antiaging
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Exactly! You surely see it. Also I surely see it. Robert Stewart is absolutely right.antiaging said:Robert Stewart--
My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University,
the modern Bibles had deserted the traditional New Testament text of
the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and
peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, primarily (but
not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been
introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text
under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek
Scholar in the world.
Do you happen to see conspiracy by the antichrist system in the introduction of the modern versions. I surely see it.
Summary:
It seems like they want people to turn away from God's true Word and start obeying Rome.
Not only Carlo Maria Martini, but Dr Bruce Metzger worked with him. David Cloud announced Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. See Carlo and Bruce as "wolves", they wore the sheep's clothing and blinded many Christians.
Do you really believe everything David clouds says and writes?Askjo said:David Cloud announced Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever.
All of the OT was translated by those who were not Christians. Very fine work can be done in text work by non-Christians.
Excellent text work is not limited to Christians.
Last edited by a moderator:
Askjo said:Absoltely TRUE!!! The apostacy is growing
You are right on both sides of the fence.
Anyone who does not making disciples shows by their practice that they do not practice what scripture teaches. In effect they are practical atheists.
[quote[See what Dean Burgon had to say about the Hort Westcott text, which is very similar (almost identical) to the Nestle-Aland text which is used today for many new versions.[/quote]I have seen it and found it unconvincing.
But as anyone who knows about this topic knows, the UBS and NA texts are not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The UBS and NA texts take into account all the evidence that God has preserved. They are based on 100% of the manuscripts, not 95% (as the MajT text claims), or 5% (as some uninformed critics say), or 8 to 12 (as the TR is).
[quoteThe evidence that the byzantine majority text is the real new testament text, is very great. [/quote]There is no doubt that the MajT has a lot of evidence in its favor. If there were a text made from the Byzantine Majority Text, it would be good. There's not. The KJV is not from the Byzantine Majority Text.
I have seen it and found it marginally convincing, but with many holes.See the evidence he presents against the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts.
But as anyone who knows about this topic knows, the UBS and NA texts are not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The UBS and NA texts take into account all the evidence that God has preserved. They are based on 100% of the manuscripts, not 95% (as the MajT text claims), or 5% (as some uninformed critics say), or 8 to 12 (as the TR is).
[quoteThe evidence that the byzantine majority text is the real new testament text, is very great. [/quote]There is no doubt that the MajT has a lot of evidence in its favor. If there were a text made from the Byzantine Majority Text, it would be good. There's not. The KJV is not from the Byzantine Majority Text.
No, there is evidence against various readings from all these manuscripts whether Aleph, B, the Majority or whatever. But as a whole, the method used in producing the NA/UBS texts is by far the superior method of textual criticism.The evidence is against vaticanus and sinaiticus. --so the evidence is also against the nestle-aland and united bible society texts and the evidence is against the modern versions translated from them.
Pastor Larry said:I have seen it and found it unconvincing.
I have seen it and found it marginally convincing, but with many holes.
But as anyone who knows about this topic knows, the UBS and NA texts are not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The UBS and NA texts take into account all the evidence that God has preserved. They are based on 100% of the manuscripts, not 95% (as the MajT text claims), or 5% (as some uninformed critics say), or 8 to 12 (as the TR is).
There is no doubt that the MajT has a lot of evidence in its favor. If there were a text made from the Byzantine Majority Text, it would be good. There's not. The KJV is not from the Byzantine Majority Text.
No, there is evidence against various readings from all these manuscripts whether Aleph, B, the Majority or whatever. But as a whole, the method used in producing the NA/UBS texts is by far the superior method of textual criticism.
The textus receptus is a rendering of the byzantine majority text and the KJV new teststament is translated from that.
What kind of education told you otherwise?!
from "the answer book" by Samuel Gipp
QUESTION: What is the difference between a "Textus Receptus Man" and a "King James Man?"
ANSWER: A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt.
EXPLANATION: Under Question #8 concerning Alexandria and Antioch it was pointed out that we derive two things from each of these locations. We derive manuscripts and an ideology through which we judge those manuscripts.
From Alexandria we receive corrupted manuscripts, tainted by the critical hand of Origen. We also receive an ideology that believes the Bible to be divine, but not perfect, not without error.
From Antioch we receive the pure line of manuscripts culminating in what is known as the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus. We also receive the ideology that the Bible is not only Divine, but perfect, without error.
1. Most Bible critics do not believe that the Bible is perfect (The Alexandrian Ideology). They usually also accept the Alexandrian manuscripts as superior to those of Antioch.
2. A King James Bible believer accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. They also accept the Antiochian Ideology in that they accept the Bible as infallible and do not believe it contains any errors or mistranslations and that it cannot be improved.
3. A Textus Receptus man also accepts the Antiochian manuscripts or Textus Receptus as superior to the Alexandrian. But a Textus Receptus man accepts the Antiochian manuscripts yet he views them with the Alexandrian Ideology.
He does not accept any translation as perfect and without error. He generally feels that the King James is the best translation but can be improved. He usually stumbles at Acts 12:4 and states that it is a mistranslation.
This contradiction is NOT the result of a bad or dishonest heart so much as it is the result of a bad education. Most Textus Receptus men have been taught by others who have been deceived into accepting, unconsciously, the Alexandrian Ideology.
bad education.
Like Paul would say;-- he was a real apostle of God
Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The age of the professional preacher is here now; you can make money doing that; it's a job.
A guy on another forum said his dad was a preacher and had a seminar for pastors. He gave an altar call for salvation and several of the pastors went up to get saved. They were already pastoring churches but never got saved.
They had their preaching papers from the university, but never got saved yet.
The age of the professional preacher.
I am glad I never went to bible college and have no intention of doing so.
The KJV bible is what I need to know to serve God.
Chick said in the online track the attack (see it on google) that the bible colleges are infiltrated with teachers that are really catholic pretending to be protestant and they are turning future pastors away from God's Word the KJV and turning them toward the modern versions. This has been happening for a long time.
They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students. They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.
I actually worked with a guy that was the pastor of a church that had a radio ministry. People gave him cars, expensive gifts. He told the church one day that he never did believe in Jesus; he went to bible college because his mother wanted him to. Then he resigned as pastor.
The age of the professional preacher.
Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Many will come in His name saying He is Christ and shall deceive many.
Answer these questions:
When did you get saved?
Where did you get saved?
How did you get saved?
Why did you get saved?
I want to discern who I am talking to. ---sighted or still blind ??
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
antiaging said:...
Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Many will come in His name saying He is Christ and shall deceive many.
When one rightly divides the Word of Truth one finds that Matthew 24:5 is the signs that the Church Age (Time of the Gentiles, Age of Grace, etc) continues NOT that the Lord is nearer coming in His pretribulation rapture2 (= resurrection1 + rapture1). The Lord is nearer coming though, because time has passed since then - we are closer to the Lord coming to get us then we ever were - for that time is future.
antiaging said:Answer these questions:
When did you get saved?
Where did you get saved?
How did you get saved?
Why did you get saved?
I want to discern who I am talking to. ---sighted or still blind ??
It is no secret what God has done for me.
What has God done for you?
----------------------------------
2 Peter 1:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore, the rather, brethren,
giue diligence to make your calling and election sure:
for if ye doe these things, ye shall neuer fall.
I'm pretty sure that 'calling' here is one's
calling TO CHRIST. But I guess it could
mean one's calling to ministry. I personally believe that
God calls each Christian to serve Him and others
in ministry.
I know I've heard "how can I be called by God?
I'm busy taking care of four children".
Yes, Mam, sounds like the Lord has called you
to spend some 30 years (probably much longer)
ministry of raising children in the nurture of the Lord.
Short history of God's Callings on Ed:
1952 - Called to salvation Rich & Full
--- (It is all about JESUS!)
1958 - Called to teach Bible
1967 - Called to the special witness of
harvesting people for Messiah Jesus whom
others have planted (Yeshua gives the growth
and does the harvesting)
1972 - Called to special ministry
of EDification to those
who are called to the pastoring ministry
1975 - Called to the Deacon Ministry
1984 - Called to special on-line ministry
of EDification to those
who are called to God's ministry
2002 - Called to special on-line ministry
of Edification to the heathen on BB = Baptist Board
(I note I never got uncalled -- maybe
if the Lord Taries I'll get called home
which will uncall me from the other calls?
----------------------------------
BTW, I'm retired from a secular job and so am independently poor & don't need a cent from anybody to minister for God on the internet (in other words, the Lord is done taking care of my needs).
antiaging said:Answer these questions:
When did you get saved?
Where did you get saved?
How did you get saved?
Why did you get saved?
The answers to those questions are of no value. The real question is: Are you living for Christ? Another is: Who is living for Jesus Christ because of your life?
A person who is living for Jesus Christ is saved and that issue was settled in the past and he is living for Christ in the present.
antiaging said:I am glad I never went to bible college and have no intention of doing so.
The KJV bible is what I need to know to serve God.
Chick said in the online track the attack (see it on google) that the bible colleges are infiltrated with teachers that are really catholic pretending to be protestant and they are turning future pastors away from God's Word the KJV and turning them toward the modern versions. This has been happening for a long time.
They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students. They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.
I actually worked with a guy that was the pastor of a church that had a radio ministry. People gave him cars, expensive gifts. He told the church one day that he never did believe in Jesus; he went to bible college because his mother wanted him to. Then he resigned as pastor.
The age of the professional preacher.
Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Many will come in His name saying He is Christ and shall deceive many.
Answer these questions:
When did you get saved?
Where did you get saved?
How did you get saved?
Why did you get saved?
I want to discern who I am talking to. ---sighted or still blind ??
Well, since you question the salvation of people here, if it were up to me, I'd throw your UFO-watching, brethren-accusing tail off the BB. But since it ain't, I'll just say...
Thanks for displaying your true heart, and your (ahem) vast knowledge.
The TR is based off of texts that are from the Byzantine family, but they are not identical.The textus receptus is a rendering of the byzantine majority text and the KJV new teststament is translated from that.
Obviuosly a better one than you had.What kind of education told you otherwise?!
Why do you guys quote and believe these liars? Gipp is an idiot.from "the answer book" by Samuel Gipp
That's how Paul described it in 1 Cor 9: Those who preach the gospel should live of hte gospel, just like farmers and soldiers.The age of the professional preacher is here now; you can make money doing that; it's a job.
I am too. At least you have somewhat of an excuse to believe this nonsense you believe.I am glad I never went to bible college
[quoteChick said [/quote]don't trust Chick either.
How do you know? You already said you didn't go to Bible college, and you have shown here that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students.
I would be interested to know what school uses the WH text. I am not aware of any.They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.
Incorrect.Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.
So what? Are you coherent? This has nothing to do with the topic.I actually worked with a guy that was the pastor of a church that had a radio ministry. People gave him cars, expensive gifts. He told the church one day that he never did believe in Jesus; he went to bible college because his mother wanted him to. Then he resigned as pastor.
[quoteAnswer these questions:
When did you get saved?[/quote]1974
At home in my bedWhere did you get saved?
By trusting Christ.How did you get saved?
Because I was a sinner who needed to be saved.Why did you get saved?
Obviously able to see very well, unlike you. You have bought a lie, like so many others here, and it leads to you attack God's word. It is truly shameful that you let yourself be deceived this way.I want to discern who I am talking to. ---sighted or still blind ??
Quote:
They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students.
Quote:
They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.
Quote:
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.
They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students.
I received the information in regard of which schools supporting the TR texts and supporting WH texts. I have the list of schools.How do you know? You already said you didn't go to Bible college, and you have shown here that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.
The lists are TTU, LU, Cedarville University and many colleges.I would be interested to know what school uses the WH text. I am not aware of any.
Quote:
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.
Antiaging is correct. I have them and use them for my Bible study. I found many problems in them because of wrong Greek texts.Incorrect.
Askjo said:I received the information in regard of which schools supporting the TR texts and supporting WH texts. I have the list of schools.
The lists are TTU, LU, Cedarville University and many colleges.
Give us the complete list. Isn't it kind of an exaggeration for you to make a list of three. Making a list of three is like someone who lives in the middle of the Arizona desert claiming that the nearest little town is a metropolis.
While you are at it, at least give us the names of the professors at some Baptist seminaries who are in violation of what you claim.
I cannot speak to Vine's Concordance, since there is no such thing to begin with, and I do not have Vine's Dictionary, but I do have two copies of Strong's Concordance.Askjo said:Quote:
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.Incorrect.
Antiaging is correct. I have them and use them for my Bible study. I found many problems in them because of wrong Greek texts.
However, Strong's (and Young's) Concordance is based on the English Bible, and not on any NT Greek (or OT Hebrew/Aramaic) text, to begin with. There are limited Greek and Hebrew dictionaries/lexicons associated with Strong's Concordance, as well as a comparative Concordance, where the differences in the wording of the RV and/or ASV differ with the KJV, and are delineated.
While there are undoubtedly some problems with Strong's (it makes no claim to be 'perfect'), this that you have put forth, is not one of them.
BTW, there are some differences between the New Strong's Concordance, and the one published by Abingdon, that is some years older. I have one of each.
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.