-
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!
Scriptural proof for...........
- Thread starter Anti-Alexandrian
- Start date
Archangel7
New Member
If I were to adopt the same kind of "exegesis" that many KJVO's use, I'd have little difficulty finding Scruptural support for the so-called "Alexandrian" position. Consider...
I could easily argue that Syria (the region of Antioch) cannot be trusted on Biblical grounds, since the very 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). Therefore, by KJVO reasoning, should we 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 very 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 very 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. If God chose Egypt as the place where the Living Word of God (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 preserved. With this strong Biblical warrant we can trust the Egyptian manuscripts implicitly -- right?
"Exegesis" of this kind is a wonderful thing!
If I were to adopt the same kind of "exegesis" that many KJVO's use, I'd have little difficulty finding Scruptural support for the so-called "Alexandrian" position. Consider...
I could easily argue that Syria (the region of Antioch) cannot be trusted on Biblical grounds, since the very 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). Therefore, by KJVO reasoning, should we 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 very 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 very 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. If God chose Egypt as the place where the Living Word of God (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 preserved. With this strong Biblical warrant we can trust the Egyptian manuscripts implicitly -- right?
"Exegesis" of this kind is a wonderful thing!
</font>[/QUOTE]Sounds exactly like 99.99999999% of KJVO arguments I hear!
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
If I were to adopt the same kind of "exegesis" that many KJVO's use, I'd have little difficulty finding Scruptural support for the so-called "Alexandrian" position. Consider...
I could easily argue that Syria (the region of Antioch) cannot be trusted on Biblical grounds, since the very 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). Therefore, by KJVO reasoning, should we 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 very 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 very 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. If God chose Egypt as the place where the Living Word of God (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 preserved. With this strong Biblical warrant we can trust the Egyptian manuscripts implicitly -- right?
"Exegesis" of this kind is a wonderful thing!
</font>[/QUOTE]I am amazed, really I am,all this talk and only ONE person has give what might be considered an answer to the original question,all the others dodged it like it was toxic.Here is a short version of what I believe about the Alexandrian manuscripts:
1.The Bibles attitude toward Egypt is not one of love. I cannot find one good thing that the Bible says about it. There might be but I havnt seen it.
2.Alexandria is mentioned 4 times in the Bible, the first time is in Acts 6:9 and it says that Jews from there where in the crowd that killed Stephan.
3.In Acts 18:24 we find a man named Apollos from there who was MISINFORMED concerning the Gospel.
4.The next two mentions of it are pretty much the same,When Paul was sailing to Rome, he was on a ship from Alexandria.(which sank) When he got on another ship and finished his journey,it too was from Alexandria.
This briefly is part of the reason why I dont like the Alexandrian manuscripts.
DeclareHim
New Member
This point is mute even if alexandria mss are corrupted it doesn't mean I can't use MV. The NKJV,WEB are just 2 MV's that use antioch or byzantine text.
1cross+3nails=4given
1cross+3nails=4given
DeclareHim
New Member
WOW kjvbt you just proved that the ships they made in alexandria weren't that good. It doesn't ever say antioch made ships I see your point perfectly. Amazing. Your brilliant. we can't use mv's because alexandria didn't make good ships. Awesome never saw that before.
1cross+3nails=4given
1cross+3nails=4given
Anti-Alexandria quoted: On several occasions,I've asked for Scriptural PROOF supporting the Alexandrian position--that is to say,Scriptural PROOF for the word of God coming from Egypt..As proof has been proven by Scripture that the word of God has it's "roots" in Antioch as per Acts 11 & 13,and can be found in reformation Bibles(based upon Syrian/Byzantine MSS.) in a multitude of languages. Seeing how the burden of proof seems to ALWAYS fall upon the Bible beleiver,I thought it would be fitting to allow others to provide Scriptural support for their position.
Natters quoted: Perhaps you do not understand when scriptural proof is and isn't required for something.
Anti-Alexandria quoted, No,I understand just fine.And it IS required.. Just answer the question...
Natters quoted, No, if you understood it you would not have asked the question in the first place.
Natters, you did NOT answer A-A's question because A-A asked you to answer his question.
I did not see your answer to him, yet because you REFUSE to answer it.
Natters quoted: Perhaps you do not understand when scriptural proof is and isn't required for something.
Anti-Alexandria quoted, No,I understand just fine.And it IS required.. Just answer the question...
Natters quoted, No, if you understood it you would not have asked the question in the first place.
Natters, you did NOT answer A-A's question because A-A asked you to answer his question.
I did not see your answer to him, yet because you REFUSE to answer it.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
The question goes beyond the borders
of respectful debate.
The question goes far beyond the boundries
of meaningful dialogue.
What does AA mean by "Alexandrian position"?
Perchance if we could figure out what you
want to know, we could answer your question.
Do you understand what we want when we ask
this question?
What is the Biblical proof that the King
James Version (KJV) is the only prefect,
inerrant English Bible? Feel free to quote
any Bible Version you wish.
BTW, it is very poor form to quote from
a Bible of which you do NOT have a copy
("copy" can be electronic).
Your statement is gnostic. You don't have the sure word of scripture... you simply "know because you know." Sorry Michelle, that requires you to be the recipient of direct divine inspiration and you, like the KJV translators, are not qualified for the task.
No scripture is of private interpretation. God didn't give you some special secret meaning Michelle and to even suggest that He did is very dangerous. You are opening your mind and heart to the father of lies by asserting that God told you to believe KJVOnlyism.
The KJV in no place says anything about perfect translations much less the KJV specifically. Your use of scripture steps way over the line of putting words in God's mouth and speaking presumptively. YOU are the one attempting to alter and change the true Word of God.
No Michelle. That is a lie. Did that voice that you attribute to God tell you this as well?
Many MV's accurately translate the texts from which they are derived. Some are at least as accurate at the task as the KJV is.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
its beauty, you know, Sometimes somebody appreciates the beauty so much they confuse their love of the beautiful thing with rational thought.
And for those to whom the KJV has become their ideal of biblical translation beauty, this sparks over into all their thinking.
If somebody is in love and they percieve somebody else to say something crazy - like other girls are just as good as the one they love, maybe - you can see how they might react a little beyond the normal rational behavior.
So it is with the KJVO crowd. They are enamored of its beauty and will take no besmirching of the beauty they perceive.
And for those to whom the KJV has become their ideal of biblical translation beauty, this sparks over into all their thinking.
If somebody is in love and they percieve somebody else to say something crazy - like other girls are just as good as the one they love, maybe - you can see how they might react a little beyond the normal rational behavior.
So it is with the KJVO crowd. They are enamored of its beauty and will take no besmirching of the beauty they perceive.
No Michelle. That is a lie. </font>[/QUOTE]Distortion! MVs infected Jesus' name in the NT alone 200 times. </font>[/QUOTE] What does that mean Askjo? How do you "infect" a name?
Any way for the record, the KJV uses the name "Jesus" 942 times. The NKJV use it 940 times while the NASB95 uses it 947 times.
How accurate are they? 1% - 45 of 5,000+ manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]That is an absolute "distortion". If we said that MV's only used the 200+ Alexandrian mss (which isn't true BTW), that would still be more than 190 more mss than used by Erasmus to make the TR.
But as I said, it is not true. The critical texts that most MV's are derived from take into account all of the known evidence. They simply give more weight based on criteria such as age.
OTOH, the NKJV very accurately translates the TR- as does the LITV, MKJV, etc.
The WEB version uses the Byzantine majority text meaning it is based on more mss than the TR or CT translations to include the KJV.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Sciptural PROOF please.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
So the KJVOs are like a human who saw
a beautiful sunset, punched out his eyes,
and was blind evermore.
Ephesians 4:1-6 (HCSB):
I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, urge
you to walk worthy of the calling you
have received,
2 with all humility and gentleness, with
patience, accepting one another in love,
3 diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit
with the peace that binds us.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as
you were called to one hope at your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all
and through all and in all.
I believe that since the Bible is not
mentioned as ONE it must be of the ALL;
ALL Bibles are collectively and individually
the written word of God.
Archangel7
New Member
On the contrary, the Bible states many times that Egypt is the place of providential preservation (Gen. 12:10, Gen. 37:28, Gen. 42:1-3, Ex. 2:5-6, Mt. 2:13-14; Ac. 7:11-12).
Anti-Alexandrian said:
On several occasions,I've asked for Scriptural PROOF supporting the Alexandrian position--that is to say,Scriptural PROOF for the word of God coming from Egypt.
It's right there, next to the one saying that the faithful copies of the Scripture came from Antioch - another KJV-only myth that the Bible never teaches.
On several occasions,I've asked for Scriptural PROOF supporting the Alexandrian position--that is to say,Scriptural PROOF for the word of God coming from Egypt.
It's right there, next to the one saying that the faithful copies of the Scripture came from Antioch - another KJV-only myth that the Bible never teaches.