"valid" versions

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Edwards:
"3 nights and 3 days in the belly of the earth:"

GE:
I shall here fall down, and wash your feet with my tears, Ed Edwards, if could you kindly open me the text you read this here in? I shall kiss your feet in most humble adoration for your scholarship and greatness as teacher. I shall relinquish everything I have ever held for my own opinion; and shall follow thee all the days of my life your humblest and most loyal of servants.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Never mind the face falling around. You are a couple of years my elder, Elder GE.

Mat 12:39-40 (KJV1611 Edition): But hee answered, and said to them, An euill and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe, and there shall no signe be giuen to it, but the signe of the Prophet Ionas.
Mat 12:40 For as Ionas was three dayes and three nights in the whales belly: so shal the sonne of man be three daies and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[EdSutton]

My turn! Part one.

I shall 'bold' the statements from the post, with conclusions and/or opinions in black, which may or may not be valid, true statements in blue, and false statements in red. My own comments will be in green.

Sinaiticus was corrupted by gnostics in Alexandria Egypt.

Opinion, as I have outlined above.

I don't think that the words of gnostic heretics are the Word of God.
An opinion I happen to share, FTR.

More facts about corrupted Sinaiticus:
It contains nearly all the new testament plus it adds "the shepherd of Hermes" and "the epistle of Barnabus" to the new testament.

Hermes ( Ἑρμῆς) is a Greek false god in Greek mythology.
Olympian false god of boundaries and of the travelers that cross them.
True statements, but 'proving' what?

If the writer of sinaiticus tried to include a story about a Greek false god, Hermes, into the New Testament that should tell you the writer of sinaiticus it is not a Christian.
The story, knnown as The Shepherd (of Hermas), has nothing to do with the Greek God, Hermes, but rather a Roman Christian, of the name Hermas ( Ἑρμᾶς), whom Paul named as well as another Roman brother by the name of Hermes ( Ἑρμῆς), and in the same verse, incidentally. (Rom. 16:14)

Don't trust what he writes.
Opinion, again.

Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable.
Conclusion and opinion put together for good measure, here. Incidentally, I happen to basically agree with this conclusion, but do recognize and admit that it is just my conclusion. I make no claim to being any sort of "scholar" - "Greek" NT or otherwise, and I just don't happen to be very good at "borrowing" someone else's scholarship, to substitute for that, and claim as my own.

10 20 and even 40 words are dropped through shear carelessness, in Sinaiticus, on many occasions. Letters, words or whole sentences are written twice over, frequently; or begun an immediately cancelled. The gross blunder that a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding occurs no less than 115 times in the new testament.
According to John Burgon who spent years studying Sinaiticus.

This is a hard one to sort out. There is much truth in this, as to factual details, but this is also interspersed with conclusions, and implications, that again, may or may not be accurately drawn. I suggest that Dean Dr. John W. Burgon, who definitley was a scholar, unlike some of these 'scholar wannabes' I run into at times, is also to be proclaimed as "Not Guilty!" of some things that are attributed to him. Some of the Dean's (BTW, Dr. Burgon seldom used his title of 'Dr.', but normally that of 'Dean' as referred to his appointment as the 'Dean' of Chichester) own words of

'Very nearly — not quite:' for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus Receptus' does call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. To mention a single instance: — When our Lord first sent forth his Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of his ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead' (nekrous egeirete,

S. Matthew 10:8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses Aleph B C D, and the Latin copies" (John, W. Burgon, D.D., The Revision Revised, p. 107-108, cited by Gary R. Hudson, my 'bolding')

"Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (eg. at pg. 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (ibid., p. 21)

are appropriate, here.

On nearly every page of the sinaiticus manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time it was copied, but most were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Same as above - basically accurate, but this is being misused by some.

Source: LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, BY Barry Burton

To use something like that to try to correct the majority text of the new testament is gross error.
I would agree were the statement accurate. Unfortunately, it is not. There is not any such thing as any "majority text" of the New Testament, the closest thing being one "reverse engineered" by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, known as TR1894. While the KJV NT appears to be translated primarily from the Greek NT of Theodore Beza (1598) - (No, it is not the same as the TR1550 of Robert Stephanus, but is a much later edition, by Beza), even this is not known for certain. The KJV translators, who also collectively were "real scholars" and not the 'store bought' variety, also exercised textual criticism, along the way, from the best texts they had at their disposal, used more than one Greek text, along with comparing with other versions, even in other languages. (Let me suggest one read the "To The Readers" preface to the 1611 KJV, with updated spelling, easily available on-line, to find out for one's self.)

In addition, many of the notes from the KJV translators, along with the official minutes of the meetings appear to have been lost in the London Fire of 1629, and the manuscript copies of their original work, appear to have been lost either then, or in a subsequent London fire (perhaps 1632), or the Great London Fire of 1666, although never say never, as some notes have been subsequently found in varied places. Dr. Thomas Cassidy aka BB Member, TCassidy, has mentioned this. Incidentally, Dr. Cassidy, along with C4K, and I, as also was Dean Burgon, are all strong advocates of the Majority/Byzantine text. But once again, as Dean Burgon noted, " 'Very Nearly -- not quite:' " The TR does not exactly equal the MT, an assumption that is being falsely made, here.

Part two to follow:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Part two.

Same format, as before.

Westcott and Hort took vaticanus and sinaiticus, two corrupted greek manuscripts from Alexandria, and with them they wrote a whole new greek text. Everywhere these corrupted manuscripts disagreed with the traditional byzantine majority text, they chose the words of the corrupted manuscripts. They put this all into a completely new greek text, that they invented in 1881.
Many modern versions are translated from their invented greek text. It dates no further back than 1881. Rsv, nasb, niv are translations of this greek text Westcott and Hort invented in 1881.
I'll not take the time again, to cover the falsities, incorrect conclusions, and opinions, here put forth above as supposed 'fact', having previously basically done so in posts # 214 & 215. (I counted 10, BTW.) I will say that there is one thing one can derive from this that is accurate, namely that the W/H text was published in 1881.

This project started in 1853, which happens to predate the discovery of Codex Aleph by 6 years. As to the inaccuracies and/or opinions, "That's one!" I'll leave it up to the rest of you to find the other nine or more.

The King James version is translated from the traditional Jewish Old Testament, the massoretic text, dating back to the time of Moses. The massoretes compiled it, at a later time.
The King James New Testament is translated from the traditional text of the New Testament of the Greek speaking poeople (sic) in Asia minor, where Paul did his missionary work. It is the majority byzantine text, translated by Erasmus called the textus receptus or the received text.
References to the Byzantine text can be traced back to about AD 150 with the first peshitta.
There are actually a few grains of truth, in the above. Unfortunately, they are buried among the chaff. The OT was basically translated from the Massoretic Text, apparently, which text was put together "at a later time" than was the NT. However, the OT scripture was certainly extant, long before the Massoretes (the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls prove this beyond doubt, as do other 'ancient versions' and Early Church Fathers' quotes, including the NT, itself.), and Jesus (and the NT writers, as well) put his own stamp on it multiple times, and even on the very format, in two instances (Mt. 23:35; Lk. 11:51; 24:44).

The 'koine' Greek was the language of the NT, Paul did some, although certainly not all, of his missionary work in 'Asia.' The rest of the above could stand some work, for all the reasons previously given!

The King James version is the real Word of God that was preserved for the English speaking people.
[Sigh!] Opinion, again - nothing more, nothing less, at best.

Incidentally, at worst, this statement denies that any and all other English version(s) both before and after the KJV (which edition, is not said, of course, but I would assume is purported to be the 1769 edition of Dr. Benjamin Blaney, since it is the one that is usually quoted) are the "real Word of God" thus, in effect, making this position one of Neo-Orthodoxy, and not one of orthodoxy. The reason for this, is that most are at least willing to admit that another version may "contain" the Word of God, to some varying degree! And the "worst of the worst" of these make the KJV equal to, if not superior to any and all other translations/versions in any other language, including ascribing a 'higher' view to the KJV's English, than to the languages in which Scripture was written.

Whatever the actual intent of this, it is certainly not the view of the translators of the KJV, themselves, as has previously been shown, nor is it the view of the hence, maligned Dean, Dr. John W. Burgon, who has been appealed to previously.

Niv, nasb, rsv, etc. are an invention of Hort and Westcott in 1881, and then later translated by others.

This last statement is utterly false, and I have twice previously shown, in this thread, that the RSV was not, in absolutely any way, an invention of Drs. Westcott and Hort. Rather than face this fact, not only is this falsehood repeated, but now it is compounded!

antiaging, I notice you reside in New Orleans, and are currently unemployed. May I suggest you look up or otherwise contact Chaplain Rev. Henry (Hy) McEnery, the Director of the Greater New Orleans Child Evangelism Fellowship, there, who happens to be a long time personal friend of mine. (I also have another personal friend, also in the ministry, that I could recommend, there in N.O. as well, but choose not to publicly do so, just as I would not do with any other female, to help to insure her own personal safety.) As one does not know who else might read these pages, one cannot be too careful in this, IMO, where ladies are concerned. However, I'm fairly sure Hy, as one who happens to be a highly trained Army Ranger, and also serves as a Chaplain to both the Fire Dept. and Police Dept. as well, can fully take care of himself, so I do not ever hesitate to mention him publicly. And his name can be found with ease, publicly, on the Internet, as well.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Gerhard Ebersoeln:
A personal question: Elder GE:

Why are you fighting me? I'm giving you the ammunition you need from the Scripture to fight for your pet Resurrection of Jesus Doctrine.

Matthew 12:39-40 (NIV):
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

'Day' and 'night' here contrast each other:
'day' = the 12 hours of the daily cycle where light is predominate
'night' = the 12 hours of the daily cycle were dark is predominate

three days + 3 nights
= 3 (12 hours) + 3 (12 hours)
= 36 hours + 36 hours
= 72 hours

The arithmetic part of mathematics is lots truer (though not scripture) than history books (where people have reasons to lie). But it sure seems to me that Jesus predicted he would be '72 hours in the belly of the earth'. So that is what I said.

The traditional Friday to Sunday morning is
Friday (our time) 6PM to Midnight - 6 hours of night
Saturday Midnight to 6AM - 6 hours of night
Saturday 6AM to 6PM - 12 hours of day
Saturday 6PM to Midnight - 6 hours of night
Sunday Midnight to 6 am - 6 hours of night

Adds up to 24 hours of might and 12 hours of day = 36 hours NOT 76 hours needed

So the Traditional Friday to Sunday morning burial of Jesus is WRONG - it does not fulfill the prophecy of Jesus.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: So the Traditional Friday to Sunday morning burial of Jesus is WRONG - it does not fulfill the prophecy of Jesus.

Barnes: “Three days and three nights. It will be seen, in the account of the resurrection of Christ, that he was in the grave but two nights and a part of three days. See #Mt 28:6. This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had not been, the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Saviour as being a false prophet; for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy, #Mt 27:63. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain, therefore, that what was meant by the prediction was accomplished. It was a maxim, also, among the Jews, in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. See #2Ch 10:5-12 Ge 42:17,18. Comp. #Es 4:16 with #Es 5:1. “

HP: I believe that Barnes has a very plausible explanation, and it does not set the scriptural account at odds with itself or with the commonly held view of the church.

 

[EdSutton]

HP: I believe that Barnes has a very plausible explanation, and it does not set the scriptural account at odds with itself or with the commonly held view of the church.

And a Thursday crucifixion, as we reckon time, is even more plausible, plus requires no 'theological gymnastics' to accomplish, which both a 'Wednesday' or a 'Friday' crucifixion do, not the least of which is both of those days require Jesus to travel further than was permitted, for "a sabbath day's journey" in order to get where He went. Study it out, by reading all the Scripture abut the event.

Then, specifically check out the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. "On the first day of the week..." (Lk. 24:1); "That same day" (Lk. 24:13); "today is the third day since these things..." (Lk. 24:21); "toward evening" (Lk. 24:29); and "the day is far spent" (Lk. 24:29), etc.

Also, consider "when" the resurrection occurred. This event is variously described as taking place "the third day" (Lk. 24:46; I Cor. 15:4); "in three days" (Matt. 27:40; Jn. 2:19); "after three days" (Mk. 8:31); "on the third day" (Ac. 10:40), and Jesus said He would "be 'three days and three nights' in the heart of the earth", and note that Jesus did NOT say that 'his body would be in a grave for any 72 hrs.'

Simply put, 'Wednesday' is too early' and 'Friday' is 'too late.'

Anybody wanna' hazard a guess as to what day is left, which just happens to fit?? I'll even give you a hint. It starts with the letter "T".

G'nite, to all you BB kiddies! It's time to :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

[antiaging]

Part two.

Same format, as before.This last statement is utterly false, and I have twice previously shown, in this thread, that the RSV was not, in absolutely any way, an invention of Drs. Westcott and Hort. Rather than face this fact, not only is this falsehood repeated, but now it is compounded!

antiaging, I notice you reside in New Orleans, and are currently unemployed. May I suggest you look up or otherwise contact Chaplain Rev. Henry (Hy) McEnery, the Director of the Greater New Orleans Child Evangelism Fellowship, there, who happens to be a long time personal friend of mine. (I also have another personal friend, also in the ministry, that I could recommend, there in N.O. as well, but choose not to publicly do so, just as I would not do with any other female, to help to insure her own personal safety.) As one does not know who else might read these pages, one cannot be too careful in this, IMO, where ladies are concerned. However, I'm fairly sure Hy, as one who happens to be a highly trained Army Ranger, and also serves as a Chaplain to both the Fire Dept. and Police Dept. as well, can fully take care of himself, so I do not ever hesitate to mention him publicly. And his name can be found with ease, publicly, on the Internet, as well.

Ed

Ed, any accurate translation of textus receptus and massoretic text is the real Word of God. The KJV just happens to be the best translation of these real unaltered texts, done by the best English scholars.
Using vaticannus and Sinaiticus which are corrupted texts to correct the real texts is error. It was done by catholics trying to shoot down the protestant bible and replace it with a more catholic bible. The modern versions presented to the protestant churches, niv, nasb, rsv etc. are basically catholic bibles with the apocrypha pulled out.
Former Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera said that Rome is trying to pull all the churches under the control of the vatican. They have infiltrated the protestant pulpits, bible colleges and church memberships with catholics pretending to be protestant. They are sneaking in catholic bibles, [modern versions] and catholic doctrine into the protestant churches and have been doing it at a rather fast pace since the end of World war 2.
In the past protestant churches blasted Rome from the pulpit. Rivera said most protestant churches have now been subdued. [The churches with united in the name are virtually controlled by the vatican.] Preachers that speak against Rome now are going to be persecuted, [Tony Alamo for example] or according to Alberto Rivera, even killed by poison or scientific death in a hospital. --or at least have their ministry ruined by a fake scandal.
The modern bible versions to me represent part of the falling away or departing form the faith that Paul prophesied would happen.
The closer we get to the rule of the antichrist and the end, the more error will creep into the church. The fake modern bibles represent a large part of that error.
1
Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Ask God to lead you to use His real Word. He for sure knows which one it is.
I have done that repeatedly at times. That is why I use the King James version.
Also the year I got saved Jesus appeared to me and paraphrased scripture to me which looks very much like KJV text.
He called me by my name and said, "you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit will be cut down."
Now I have seen scripture in the KJV bible that looks very much like this. Which is another reason why I accept that one as the real Word of God.
I am working now and have been for months. I don't have the time to spend on the computer like you do. I need to get ready for work now.
bye

 

[Rippon]

The fake modern bibles ...

I beg your pardon?Are you saying that the NIV,NASB,HCSB and others are not really the Word of God?
And what do you do with the hundreds of Bibles in foreign languages?
____________________________________________________________

Ask God to lead you to use His real Word. He for sure knows which one it is.
[/quote]

God knows everything for sure.His "real Word" is not only encapsulated in a 400 year old version.
_____________________________________________________________

Also the year I got saved Jesus appeared to me and paraphrased scripture to me which looks very much like KJV text.
He called me by my name and said, "you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit will be cut down."
Now I have seen scripture in the KJV bible that looks very much like this. Which is another reason why I accept that one as the real Word of God.
[/quote]

You know,for all the railing you do about Roman Catholic infiltration and the MV's not being legit -- you stand in great error with your Jesus visitation.I think others here are concerned about that too.You're off the deep end and in danger.

 

[Rippon]

The fake modern bibles ...

I beg your pardon?You have no right to say that.You're claiming that the NIV,NASB,HCSB and others are not genuinely the Word of God?!You have a lot to learn.
___________________________________________________________


Ask God to lead you to use His real Word. He for sure knows which one it is.
[/quote]

God knows everything -- that's for sure.Among the things He knows is that the real Word of God is not encapsulated in only a 400 year old version.
_____________________________________________________________

Also the year I got saved Jesus appeared to me and paraphrased scripture to me which looks very much like KJV text.
He called me by my name and said, "you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit will be cut down."
Now I have seen scripture in the KJV bible that looks very much like this. Which is another reason why I accept that one as the real Word of God.
I am working now and have been for months. I don't have the time to spend on the computer like you do. I need to get ready for work now.
bye[/quote]

You know,for all the railing you do about Roman Catholics infiltrating Baptists ranks and impugning MV's -- you are in grave error with your mysticism.That supposed Jesus visitation of yours is evidence as to how far off you are.

 

[antiaging]

I beg your pardon?Are you saying that the NIV,NASB,HCSB and others are not really the Word of God?
And what do you do with the hundreds of Bibles in foreign languages?
____________________________________________________________

Ask God to lead you to use His real Word. He for sure knows which one it is.

God knows everything for sure.His "real Word" is not only encapsulated in a 400 year old version.
_____________________________________________________________

Also the year I got saved Jesus appeared to me and paraphrased scripture to me which looks very much like KJV text.
He called me by my name and said, "you must die before you enter society. Unless the seed die the tree cannot bear good fruit. All trees that do not bear fruit will be cut down."
Now I have seen scripture in the KJV bible that looks very much like this. Which is another reason why I accept that one as the real Word of God.
[/quote]

You know,for all the railing you do about Roman Catholic infiltration and the MV's not being legit -- you stand in great error with your Jesus visitation.I think others here are concerned about that too.You're off the deep end and in danger.[/QUOTE]

Your comment sounds alot like what Festus told Paul, when he told him of his Jesus visitation.

Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Acts 26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

 

[Ed Edwards]

antiaging: // Ed, any accurate translation of textus receptus and massoretic text is the real Word of God. The KJV just happens to be the best translation of these real unaltered texts, done by the best English scholars.Ed, any accurate translation of textus receptus and massoretic text is the real Word of God. The KJV just happens to be the best translation of these real unaltered texts, done by the best English scholars. //

1. This is not true. The KJV also used the LXX and Latin Vulgate - both these sources are condemned by certain parties, but non-the-less, the KJV used all ancient sources available to them.

2. Modern versions that are "any accurate translation of textus receptus and massoretic text is the real Word of God' such as the nKJV and HCSB are condemned by some along side of texts like the NIV and TNIV which always side with the 'oldest texts'.

 

[DHK]

And having reached 30 pages we will now close this thread.
Feel free to start another if you so desire.