KJV-only myths about the 1769

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
KJV John 1:18 -- "The only begotten Son, . . . He hath declared Him."
NASV John 1:18 -- "The only begotten God, . . . He has explained Him."
NWT (Jehovah's Witness) --"The only begotten God, . . . is the one that has explained Him." The Amplified Bible -- "The only unique Son, (f), the only begotten God, . . . hath made Him known." (f) Footnote. "Supported by a great mass of ancient evidence (Vincent)." John 1:30 KJV -- "After me cometh a man which is preferred before me; for He was before me."
John 1:30 NASV -- "After me cometh a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me." A footnote reads, ". . lit. has become before me."

Rom. 14:10-12 KJV -- "For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ . . . so then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
[Material Directly copied from another website deleted]

You are again quoting large portions of KJVO websites without their permission. If this continues you will have to quit posting. If you wish to read the material and re-write it that is one thing, but to quote from is and a copyright notice is no longer required for copyright protection.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! </font>[/QUOTE]I beg you pardon i did rewrite it ! but it sounded so good I almost did it verbatum I ment only to use Scripture since the Question did Arise of what Scriptures denied the Diety of Christ! I did use some of the Explanation though and did not intend to plagerise line to line: just to show the texts. I will try my best to abide by the rules I do appreciate the moderators doing such a fine job and well informed folk as youself keep up the good work ol chapp!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
NASV John 1:18 -- "The only begotten God, . . . He has explained Him."

Is Jesus not GOD? And how often did both Jesus and His Father call Jesus "begotten"?

You tell me! HE was manifested in the "flesh" Yes He is God and Man. Dont let the sandals fool ya Brother this Man is Holy God. Read John 3:16 In the AV 1611

 

[william s. correa]

The point is that they are not the same

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
The point is that they are not the same

So you're expert enuff to choose one over the other? Methinks you're GUESSING, Bro.

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
I beg you pardon i did rewrite it ! but it sounded so good I almost did it verbatum

Thanks for the good laugh...from the "it was to doggone good not to copy" department. I should've tried that one in 11th-grade English.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

That's one of the funniest things I have heard in a while.

Man, with finals going on right now, I needed that.

Keep em coming, William!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by robycop3:
NASV John 1:18 -- "The only begotten God, . . . He has explained Him."

Is Jesus not GOD? And how often did both Jesus and His Father call Jesus "begotten"?

The question is not, "Is Jesus God or not?" The question is God begotten? We know that Jesus was begotten of the Father, but how could God be "begotten?"

If we look at the manuscript evidence we see that μονογενης θεος is the reading found only in p66, the original reading of Aleph (later corrected), B, the original reading of C (later corrected), and L. ο μονογενης θεος, a variant, is found in p75, the second corrector of Aleph, and 33.

ο μονογενης υιος is the reading found in A, C (third corrector), W, Delta, Theta, Psi, 0141, the f family, the f13 family, 28, 157, 180, 205, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, all of the Byzantine manuscripts, including the old Byzantine Uncials E F G H, and all the lectionaries, not to mention overwhelming support from the Patristic quotes (better than 3 to 1) dating clear back to Ignatius in the late 1st century AD. Not to mention all of the ancient vernaculars with the exception of the Bohairic Coptic.

The reading μονογενης θεος is a form of Gnosticism that invaded Christendom in the late first century AD. In Gnosticism gods begat other gods, and produced families of gods. Paul warns of this heresy in 1 Timothy 6:20.

The Gnostics got the names for these gods from the Scriptures, interpreting common words to refer to mythological gods, and inventing myths from the use of these Greek words in the New Testament. These gods (which Gnostics called Aeons) were called "Zoe" (life), "Logos" (word), "Anthropos" (man), "Ecclessia" (church), "Monogenes" (only begotten), etc. (See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Ch. XII.)

Now, where did Gnosticism originate and where was it centered? Take a guess! Could it have been Alexandria, Egypt? Bingo! Alexandria was a hot bed of Gnosticism, and every witness to the Gnostic reading μονογενης θεος comes from Alexandria, starting in the late 2 through the 3rd century AD. We know this from an ancient Gnostic text (the Bruce Codex) discovered in Alexandria in 1769. In that Gnostic Codex we can read the Gnostic mantra used in their "worship" which states, "Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou, Thou art living within those that live, thou art holy within the holy ones, thou dost exist within those that exist, and thou art the father within the fathers, and thou art God within the gods, and thou art Lord within the lords, and thou art a place within all the places." This blasphemous mantra begins with the words, "This truly is the only-begotten God. This is he whom the All knew. They became God, and they raised up his name : God."

In order to try to excuse the inclusion of this Gnostic heresy in the bibles based on those few Alexandrian manuscripts the proponents of the reading μονογενης θεος have had to redefine the meaning of μονογενης, abandoning almost 2,000 years of church history and adopt a new meaning that does violence not only to the scriptures, history, the creeds and confessions of historic Christendom, but also to the Greek grammar itself. There is no doubt at all that "mono" means "only" (see Matthew 4:10, 12:4, 17:8, 24:36, and over 50 other places in the NT) and "genos" means "offspring" (see Acts 17:28, 29 and Revelation 22:16).

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

How is it that these two versions are "cousins?"

Matthew 7:20. Compare John 1:18 again for proof.Last time I checked,Galatians 5:9 was still true.

 

[Ed Edwards]

My post below was written before this appeared. Being generic in nature, i'll go ahead and
not edit my own post (and I don't deny what
Bro. William S. Correa says). We all need
to remember what I say here (especially in
the 'heat' of the debate

Originally posted by william s. correa:

I beg you pardon i did rewrite it ! but it sounded so good I almost did it verbatum I ment only to use Scripture since the Question did Arise of what Scriptures denied the Diety of Christ! I did use some of the Explanation though and did not intend to plagerise line to line: just to show the texts. I will try my best to abide by the rules I do appreciate the moderators doing such a fine job and well informed folk as youself keep up the good work ol chapp!

Ed said earlier: //There is no Modern Version that denies the Diety of
Christ. And if you don't have a modern version to quote from then
you can't show a specific example //

Let me expand my warning.
There are legal requirements for posting here on BB.
It is illegal to quote (cut & paste) from other sites without
attribulation. People who disrespect this rule show disrespect
for the Baptist Board (BB), BB owners, BB workers, and BB members.
Quite frankly, people who disrespect this rule identify themselves
spiritually with marauders and other terrorists.

note: the requirement remains even if the cut and paste
is a cut & paste to one's own computer then a later (can be
years) cut and paste to BB.


But there is a second problem: the places that some are
cutting and pasting from are totally unreliable and
deceive their readers and really make those who cut & post
look bad, non-Beroeans. Where are the Beroeans (Acts 17:11)?
TO be a Beroean in this situation, one has to check the
scripture FROM THE MV. Not checking the MV and you get caught
by unscrupled authors - the MV doesn't say what the said it did.

Another problem: Nobody in their right mind makes a doctrine
out of ONE VERSE. The Diety of Christ is delineated at numerous
places in the scriptures and hinted at hundreds of times.
Omitting one verse does NOT constitue proof that the
doctrine of the "Diety of Christ" has been omitted.
Again, the naughty authors make a fool of the unwarry reader

Some requests:

1. please cite not only Book, Chapter, and verse but:
Translation, Book, Chapter, and Verse. That includes different
translations called the KJV.

2. Please print at least a whole verse.
This may seem silly, but it shows that one has checked the
source and makes one's post more than a cut & paste.
Frequently, the 'missing word' is in a nearby verse.
Remember the rule of making sence of the Bible: COntext, context, context

william s. correa: //KJV John 1:18 -- "The only begotten
Son, . . . He hath declared Him."

Changing either or both of these phrases does NOT
take away from the diety of Christ in this verse.

Here is a proper quote:

John 1:18 KJV(1769 edition):
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.


william s. correa: // All the trial and error translations
before the AV 1611 did
you count them as well? and the oops Manuscripts from Alexandria
and Kodex Sinusses! And aaaaalll the oops translations
that got thrown in the trash that Wescott and Hort found!
and later tried to pass them off as the Authentic Scriptures
that ommit and completely
blatently change not REVISE,
but CHANGE the Word All together:
After all of those
there are probably 1000's.//

Unfortunately in your tirade, you forgot your original
question:

William S. Correa: //And why do we need 400 translations in ENGLISH?//

did you get the part in ENGLISH?

If you count all the non-english sources of the Bible
there are over 5,000 witnesses to the original New Testament.

BTW, recall that the translators of the KJV left translator
footnotes showing they also had various witnesses NOT just
one unique witness. Recall that nothing could be established
in Jewish law by one and only one witness. So one-Bible
worldly theologies do not follow the Law as given to the
Jews (Old Testament).


william s. correa: //All the trial and error translations
before the AV 1611 did
you count them as well?//

I counted them. I even use one on a weekly basis:
the Geneva Bible (1585 or was that '86?)

william s. correa: // and the oops Manuscripts from Alexandria
and Kodex Sinusses! And aaaaalll the oops translations
that got thrown in the trash that Wescott and Hort found!//

Tee Hee, neither Westcott nor Hort found any manuscripts in
a trash. The trash story was a made-up slander about another
person.

william s. correa: // ...
and later tried to pass them off as the Authentic Scriptures
that ommit and completely
blatently change not REVISE,
but CHANGE the Word All together://

IMHO the Sinaic and Vatanic witnesses are true.
They do NOT change the Word of God. God is so smart that
He made it so you can change half the words or omit 90%
of the text and GOD'S WRITTEN WORD COMES SHINING THROUGH.
Any less a God, like the one booker's God, is teeny tiney

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
... every witness to the Gnostic reading μονογενης θεος comes from Alexandria, starting in the late 2 through the 3rd century AD. We know this from an ancient Gnostic text (the Bruce Codex) discovered in Alexandria in 1769.

Luckily that same document also refers to an "only-begotten Son" twice and an "only-begotten Son of God" once. We're glad to have this document as simply another early witness to the original nomenclature "only-begotten Son"! See a translation of The Bruce Codex.

 

[william s. correa]

Ok Folks then Explain in the book of Daniel when the three Hebrew children were thrown into the firey funace and the Nasb says " son of the gods" instead of "Son of God". If God Allows Mistakes to be aded to the Word or truth to be taken out then whoever beleives that has many gods.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How is it that these two versions are "cousins?"

Matthew 7:20. Compare John 1:18 again for proof.Last time I checked,Galatians 5:9 was still true. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay...

Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men]. Matthew 7:20 NWT

So then, you will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:20 NASB

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20 KJV

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the NASB and the NWT are "cousins," AA. Nice try...

In this passage Jesus was telling us that we will know people by their fruits. A Christian will produce good "fruit" and someone who is not a Christian will not produce good "fruit."

 

[robycop3]

Wm. Correa:Ok Folks then Explain in the book of Daniel when the three Hebrew children were thrown into the firey funace and the Nasb says " son of the gods" instead of "Son of God". If God Allows Mistakes to be aded to the Word or truth to be taken out then whoever beleives that has many gods.

Simple...A PAGAN king like Neb wouldn't know the REAL God had a Son, plural sons, or much else about Him. Remember, Neb had had those Jews thrown into the furnace for refusing to bow to his IDOL. Now, while Neb began worshipping the REAL God later, he was still pagan at the time of his "cookout".

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by william s. correa:
If God Allows Mistakes to be aded to the Word or truth to be taken out then whoever beleives that has many gods.

Then, Mr. Correa, please explain something to us so that we all may understand. If God so absolutely controlled the textual choices and the translation efforts of the KJV translators, then why would He allow so many "printing errors" to creep into His perfect English translation? Are you saying that God had the power to completely guide the efforts of the translators but forgot to control the printers? If God completely controlled the translation of the KJV as you claim, then He certainly didn't control the printers. If this is your assertion, then you question God's power and/or His ability to remember.

 

[robycop3]

There are several well-thought explanations here, but let's not forget the symbolic use of "begotten" by God. He uses it in reference to Jesus' resurrection from the dead into eternal life, with His full power and glory restored.

While on earth, Jesus was 100% man & 100% God. He was the only REAL Personage of God who ever died, to our knowledge.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the NASB and the NWT are "cousins," AA. Nice try...

Oh I think it does.
They both correctly translate that passage from the same Alexandrian foundation.Do you reject that? Why?

And when are you gonna pony-up proof I'm KJBO??
Remember???????

 

[Askjo]

TC, interesting comment on begotten Son VS begotten God.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by rbell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
I beg you pardon i did rewrite it ! but it sounded so good I almost did it verbatum

Thanks for the good laugh...from the "it was to doggone good not to copy" department. I should've tried that one in 11th-grade English. </font>[/QUOTE]Your welcome

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Keith M:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by william s. correa:
If God Allows Mistakes to be aded to the Word or truth to be taken out then whoever beleives that has many gods.

Then, Mr. Correa, please explain something to us so that we all may understand. If God so absolutely controlled the textual choices and the translation efforts of the KJV translators, then why would He allow so many "printing errors" to creep into His perfect English translation? Are you saying that God had the power to completely guide the efforts of the translators but forgot to control the printers? If God completely controlled the translation of the KJV as you claim, then He certainly didn't control the printers. If this is your assertion, then you question God's power and/or His ability to remember. </font>[/QUOTE]So you say but, why should I beleive your witness?

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Wm. Correa:Ok Folks then Explain in the book of Daniel when the three Hebrew children were thrown into the firey funace and the Nasb says " son of the gods" instead of "Son of God". If God Allows Mistakes to be aded to the Word or truth to be taken out then whoever beleives that has many gods.

Simple...A PAGAN king like Neb wouldn't know the REAL God had a Son, plural sons, or much else about Him. Remember, Neb had had those Jews thrown into the furnace for refusing to bow to his IDOL. Now, while Neb began worshipping the REAL God later, he was still pagan at the time of his "cookout".

the way I read it is that he was tricked into signing that decree and did not want to throw them in the fire, and if Daniel was in the Kings household I'm sure he Witnessed to Him About the true and ONE Living God. Remember nebucanessar had just witnessed a Miracle and I'm sure Shadrach Explained it to him and planted that seed which later got the King saved, he had to eat grass for seven years though and finnally came to his senses. which I hope the MV's readers will one day.