Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
First you prove "the recent discoveries plucked from the trash can of a convent". Well, no, just share what you are talking about so we can find the discoveries IN ENGLISH. Thank you.
-
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!
"valid" versions
- Thread starter small fry
- Start date
- Status
First you prove "the recent discoveries plucked from the trash can of a convent". Well, no, just share what you are talking about so we can find the discoveries IN ENGLISH. Thank you.
EdSutton said:
I was referring to faith to do the supernatural:
Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Ed, if your faith is supposed to be supported by the Word of God, you should be certain that you have the real Word of God, to have real faith in what it says.
If a person is uncertain which book is the real Word of God, then how can he trust the words about using faith to be true or not. And if he don't trust the words of the book, then how does he have faith to do the supernatural.
Chinese Chi Kung experts, that are atheists or bhuddists have more faith to do the supernatural than many Christians. That is a shame.
They can heal by the laying on of hands.
Slap a brick lying on a flat surface and it breaks in two; mind over matter.
Break only a certain chosen brick in a stack by concentrating chi on one brick only; again mind over matter.
Psychics moving objects without touching them; psychokinesis.
research psychokinesis on google; you'll find a website teaching you how to do it.
These things are done by unwavering belief they can do it.
Mark 11:23 says whosoever and whatsoever
It seems to be for any man not just Christians.
I saw a russian that pulled a freight train car by wires connected to hooks in his arms. It was genuine. Probably a form of psychokinesis, mind over matter. The Russian scientists examining him said, we don't understand this type of science.
So why when Christians have the Word of the living God, explaining to them that all things are possible to him that believes, so few have the use of supernatural faith or even try to use it? Why so many in the secular world using faith to do the supernatural better than many Christians?
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
Mark 4:40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
antiaging said:
My investigation of this this charge is that it is baseless.
antiaging said:
This 'Mary worship' charge against Hort is unfair.
This 'Mary worship' charge against Westcott is baseless.
If these charges against Hort and Westcott were true, then the same charges could be filed against ALL the translators of the KJV. Westcott and Hort were both like the translators of the KJV: CoE (Church of England members).
The only thing you said correct is that the RSV, NASV, and NIV teams of translators had available The Codex Sinaiticus, a Valid Bible, available for use when translating their respective Bibles.
It is a double standard to say that the KJV translators did something right by using the Bible translations they had available to them
AND
that the NIV translators did sometahing wrong by using the Bible translations they had available to them.
The NIV is a vaild version. The KJV is a vaild version.
Ed has captured the Moral Highground.
Ed Edwards said:
Chick.com has quotes by both those men showing mariolatry and proving chick's claim they were closet catholics; Catholics pretending to be protestant.
The Roman Catholic church is behind the publishing of the modern versions. They are trying to shoot down the protestant bible. This started over 100 years ago with two catholics, (that were pretending to be protestant) named Hort and Wescott. They introduced the corrupted texts vaticanus and sinaiticus, into a revised translation called the RSV.
Ralph Earle of the international bible society said, that that the Greek
text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I
subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic"
text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New
Testament. [Eclectic means pick and mix.]
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.
It is important to note that the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland eclectic
text, which forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the
New Testament, is also identical to the readings of the New Latin
Vulgate authorised by the Pope and issued by the Vatican in 1979.
The Nestle-Aland eclectic uses the texts of Hort and Westcott, the vaticannus and sinaiticus mixed in there. The NIV is translated from this pick and mix eclectic also.
The translators of most of
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.
So the vatican pulls a "fast one", [con game] on the protestant churches and you go along with it; not wise Ed.
Sinaiticus should have been left in the trash can at the convent.
John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
// The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton //
Yes, apparently a loose canon*
yes, this is spelled right - 'cannon' would mean a BIG GUN
From what I've see quoted from him, I would not believe anything he says.
While I found 5 quotes of 'John Burgon' which are 5 copies of 'Barry Burton' on five web locations - I find no quote of 'John Burgon'. If Barry Burton is the only person who can find where John Burgon said these things - then Barry Burton is a Liar. The whole idea of the scholarly 'quote' system is that people can't make up lies about what other people said. One has to check certain people out about what they say. I already knew that Sister G.A. Riplinger is a liar. Now I know Barry Burton is a Liar.
This phrase shows only 3 hits, all among KJVO sites:
"Barry Burton" " Waldensian Churches"
Every thing that Barry Burton says needs to be verified by an independent source. The Bible itself says:
Mat 18:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition, Red words of Jesus added by Ed):
But if he heare thee not, take yet with thee one or two, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses euery worde may be confirmed.
BTW, Matthew 18:16 is also a good proof for what I say in my trailer:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton //
Yes, apparently a loose canon*
yes, this is spelled right - 'cannon' would mean a BIG GUN
From what I've see quoted from him, I would not believe anything he says.
While I found 5 quotes of 'John Burgon' which are 5 copies of 'Barry Burton' on five web locations - I find no quote of 'John Burgon'. If Barry Burton is the only person who can find where John Burgon said these things - then Barry Burton is a Liar. The whole idea of the scholarly 'quote' system is that people can't make up lies about what other people said. One has to check certain people out about what they say. I already knew that Sister G.A. Riplinger is a liar. Now I know Barry Burton is a Liar.
This phrase shows only 3 hits, all among KJVO sites:
"Barry Burton" " Waldensian Churches"
Every thing that Barry Burton says needs to be verified by an independent source. The Bible itself says:
Mat 18:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition, Red words of Jesus added by Ed):
But if he heare thee not, take yet with thee one or two, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses euery worde may be confirmed.
BTW, Matthew 18:16 is also a good proof for what I say in my trailer:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
// Chick.com has quotes by both those men showing mariolatry and proving chick's claim they were closet catholics; Catholics pretending to be protestant. //
Nobody here bases his/her Doctrine or writings on the words of chick.com nor his comics. Well, nobody who intends to say something worth while.
What did I do with that file comparing my 1979 copy of the SABOTAGE comic by JackChick with a modern SABOTAGE?
Nobody here bases his/her Doctrine or writings on the words of chick.com nor his comics. Well, nobody who intends to say something worth while.
What did I do with that file comparing my 1979 copy of the SABOTAGE comic by JackChick with a modern SABOTAGE?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
invalid book :-(
// The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton //
Yes, apparently a loose canon*
yes, this is spelled right - 'cannon' would mean a BIG GUN
From what I've see quoted from him, I would not believe anything he says.
While I found 5 quotes of 'John Burgon' which are 5 copies of 'Barry Burton' on five web locations - I find no quote of 'John Burgon'. If Barry Burton is the only person who can find where John Burgon said these things - then Barry Burton is a Liar. The whole idea of the scholarly 'quote' system is that people can't make up lies about what other people said. One has to check certain people out about what they say. I already knew that Sister G.A. Riplinger is a liar. Now I know Barry Burton is a Liar.
This phrase shows only 3 hits, all among KJVO sites:
"Barry Burton" " Waldensian Churches"
On this this page:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0132.asp
the link to Let's Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton
get you to Answers to your Bible Version Questions by David Daniels
( http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0122.asp )
Let's Weigh is at: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
// The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton //
Yes, apparently a loose canon*
yes, this is spelled right - 'cannon' would mean a BIG GUN
From what I've see quoted from him, I would not believe anything he says.
While I found 5 quotes of 'John Burgon' which are 5 copies of 'Barry Burton' on five web locations - I find no quote of 'John Burgon'. If Barry Burton is the only person who can find where John Burgon said these things - then Barry Burton is a Liar. The whole idea of the scholarly 'quote' system is that people can't make up lies about what other people said. One has to check certain people out about what they say. I already knew that Sister G.A. Riplinger is a liar. Now I know Barry Burton is a Liar.
This phrase shows only 3 hits, all among KJVO sites:
"Barry Burton" " Waldensian Churches"
On this this page:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0132.asp
the link to Let's Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton
get you to Answers to your Bible Version Questions by David Daniels
( http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0122.asp )
Let's Weigh is at: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
...
Prove to the list that any of the recent discoveries plucked from the trash can of a convent have disproved in any way that the KJV is based on faulty manuscripts and or texts.
HP: Are you honestly ignorant of the way in which the text used by Wescott and Hort was found? What is there to prove? That is a simple matter of common knowledge…..or at least it should be. Do you have a different story to tell? If so, share it with the list.
I am still waiting on you to substantiate your story and identify those ‘Baptist killers’ you made mention of that were translators of the KJV. Could it be that you do not know what you speak of in this case? You seem primed and ready to quickly call others liars. I wonder if you can show us the veracity of your own statements? (not saying you cannot, just desiring to hear your proof
)
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
...
Prove to the list that any of the recent discoveries plucked from the trash can of a convent have disproved in any way that the KJV is based on faulty manuscripts and or texts.
HP: Are you honestly ignorant of the way in which the text used by Wescott and Hort was found? What is there to prove? That is a simple matter of common knowledge…..or at least it should be. Do you have a different story to tell? If so, share it with the list.
I am still waiting on you to substantiate your story and identify those ‘Baptist killers’ you made mention of that were translators of the KJV. Could it be that you do not know what you speak of in this case? You seem primed and ready to quickly call others liars. I wonder if you can show us the veracity of your own statements? (not saying you cannot, just desiring to hear your proof
)Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Here is a brief remark I found at this web site. http://www.feasite.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm
“But many do not see how the whole field of textual criticism has been shaped and molded by the false premises and conclusions of "higher criticism." The central issue revolves around the acceptance of the Westcott-Hort text rather than the Textus Receptus as the basis for Bible translations, versions and revisions.”
HP: I see that as the real point that needs to be made. It is not that all new versions are based directly on the exact same text W&H utilized. There are striking similarities, though, between the omissions, added words, and changed words in many of the new versions and the W&H text, although claiming to have been garnered from different text(s).
One of the most striking differences that affects the way in which translations are made, is that they now seem to have shifted from taking the text and translating it by direct examination of the words employed, but are now translating on what they feel is the 'overall meaning of the text.' This allows for far more latitude in the tinkering and altering of the text, allowing for doctrinal positions held by the translators to have far more impact upon the rendering of the text than ever was employed in the past. That is to say nothing concerning the problem of corrupted texts being employed as well. Put the two together and you have a recipe for unprecedented translational corruption as we have clearly seen in the last one hundred and forty or so years.
As for me, I will stay with the Authorized or the KJV.:thumbs:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Here is yet another ending to an excellent article concerning many modern versions affinity with the Westcott-Hort text.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/aremodern.htm
“The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from the W-H text. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is very significant and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something.”
HP: Ann, now what was your point in trying to distance late versions with the WH text??
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/aremodern.htm
“The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from the W-H text. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is very significant and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something.”
HP: Ann, now what was your point in trying to distance late versions with the WH text??
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
This would be somewhat correct in the idea of translating as a thought for though as opposed to word for word (which of course is totally impossible and a wrong term to use but a common one so I'l use it). However, the doctrinal positions held by the translators is not brought forth in true translations in either the thought for thought or the word for word.
Understand that there is a difference in languages that MUST be translated as thoughts over exact words because of cultural differences. "Mon petite chou" in French literally means "my little cabbage". If we were to keep the literal translation, it means nothing to us as Americans other than wondering why someone would lovingly call their child a vegetable. But to translate it properly in English, we can say "my little sweetie" or something like that. We need to understand that we cannot always translate something literally because it means absolutely nothing in our language and the message is lost.
Corrupted texts? Yeah - hasn't been proven to me nor the vast majority of believers including extremely learned men of God. If the learned men of God who I respect did not stand on only one text (which was translated by a man - and a fallable one at that who admitted mistakes), then I will not either. I see it as a false god.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: That should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are a whole lot of new translations that are not true translations.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: This post is having a hard time getting away from me. It would appear to me to have some serious ‘spacial disorientation’ implications. I am still trying to understand how one ‘falls out of the grave’ , or falls away from this world right into the arms of Jesus’ at the resurrection??
Take the following verse for example. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
If one lives in the southern hemisphere, according to Ed’s special disorientation, would He not be going up instead of descending, and would not the dead be seen as falling out as opposed to rising up? That does not even begin to address the ‘spacial disorientation’ and confusion as to what happens to those living at the equator at the time of the Lord’s return. They must have to roll out.
Does Ed plan to live his last days confined to the southern hemisphere in order for this camera orientation at the time of the rapture to witness this ‘falling out of the grave’ he speaks of? …..or could his theological conclusions as to the real meaning of 2Th 2:3 be suffering from some of the same difficulties the theories of a flat earth once experienced?
2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
// HP: Are you honestly ignorant of the way in which the text used by Wescott and Hort was found? //
No, I'm not ignorant about the way the text was preserved by God. I am very enlightened about what deceitful people say about Wescott and Hort. I am very knowledgable about the extremes that desperate people go to malign our Christian Brothers: Hort and Wescott. I am wise to the deception of anti-Bible folks who make up stories with little or no valid substance.
I get my information from a source with references that check out (instead of from sources that quote each other's unchecked references). I do NOT get my information about Wescott and Hort from known scam artists or comic books.
Here is some good, verifiable data, about Westcott and Hort:
http://www.westcotthort.com/
The Webmaster of this Site (founder and owner) is a member in Good Standing of the Baptist Board (BB). Membership in the Baptist Board is, in fact, a good criteria for judging anti-Bible sites and pro-Bible Sites. Anti-Bible people (who don't like my NIV, nKJV, TNIV, HCSB, NASB, NLT, etc.) cannot stay members here on BB - Good honest people who use verifiable & valid sources for their quotes can stay members on BB.
OBTW (Oh, by the way) whoever said something about the Latin Bible contaminated by Westcott and Hort have no idea that the fame of both Westcott and Hort is that they used all available ancient sources for thier creation of 19th century (1801-1900) GREEK New Testaments.
No, I'm not ignorant about the way the text was preserved by God. I am very enlightened about what deceitful people say about Wescott and Hort. I am very knowledgable about the extremes that desperate people go to malign our Christian Brothers: Hort and Wescott. I am wise to the deception of anti-Bible folks who make up stories with little or no valid substance.
I get my information from a source with references that check out (instead of from sources that quote each other's unchecked references). I do NOT get my information about Wescott and Hort from known scam artists or comic books.
Here is some good, verifiable data, about Westcott and Hort:
http://www.westcotthort.com/
The Webmaster of this Site (founder and owner) is a member in Good Standing of the Baptist Board (BB). Membership in the Baptist Board is, in fact, a good criteria for judging anti-Bible sites and pro-Bible Sites. Anti-Bible people (who don't like my NIV, nKJV, TNIV, HCSB, NASB, NLT, etc.) cannot stay members here on BB - Good honest people who use verifiable & valid sources for their quotes can stay members on BB.
OBTW (Oh, by the way) whoever said something about the Latin Bible contaminated by Westcott and Hort have no idea that the fame of both Westcott and Hort is that they used all available ancient sources for thier creation of 19th century (1801-1900) GREEK New Testaments.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Then prove it Ed. Give us your story as to where and how Westcott happened across this manuscript.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
// Does Ed plan to live his last days confined to the southern hemisphere in order for this camera orientation at the time of the rapture to witness this ‘falling out of the grave’ he speaks of? //
Every half-back would love it if his front line could make holes they could DANCE THROUGH that are as big as the holes of ignorance (ignorance = not knowing) you have about up & down. (By extrapolation one might figure that UP/DOWN mixed up folks would be confused by FIRST & LAST, LEFT & RIGHT, downtime (future) & uptime (past), now & then, and & or, either & or, all other bipolar comparisons, etc)
It is the saved people in Australia who will be drawn up at the Resurrection and the saved folks in the USofA will fall out of the grave. (people in China & South America will pop out of the side of the earth - right into the hands of Jesus!)
Again, the comparison is NOT about if we go up or down at resurrection/rapture but the terms used to describe it. There are two ways the devil uses to confuse people:
1. using the same words to mean different things
2. using different words to mean the same thing in front of people who have no basis in the Word of God. The Word of God is, as my Signature/trailer suggests, easier to understand if you have two or more different versions of it. God has promised to Preserve the Word of God to all generations AND DELIVERED on His promise abundantly - there are plenty of English versins that are Valid (for users of English).
Here UP and DOWN are two different ways to describe getting from buried into the arms of Jesus. Only the ignorant will NOT be blessed by God's Word in this matter.
Every half-back would love it if his front line could make holes they could DANCE THROUGH that are as big as the holes of ignorance (ignorance = not knowing) you have about up & down. (By extrapolation one might figure that UP/DOWN mixed up folks would be confused by FIRST & LAST, LEFT & RIGHT, downtime (future) & uptime (past), now & then, and & or, either & or, all other bipolar comparisons, etc)
It is the saved people in Australia who will be drawn up at the Resurrection and the saved folks in the USofA will fall out of the grave. (people in China & South America will pop out of the side of the earth - right into the hands of Jesus!)
Again, the comparison is NOT about if we go up or down at resurrection/rapture but the terms used to describe it. There are two ways the devil uses to confuse people:
1. using the same words to mean different things
2. using different words to mean the same thing in front of people who have no basis in the Word of God. The Word of God is, as my Signature/trailer suggests, easier to understand if you have two or more different versions of it. God has promised to Preserve the Word of God to all generations AND DELIVERED on His promise abundantly - there are plenty of English versins that are Valid (for users of English).
Here UP and DOWN are two different ways to describe getting from buried into the arms of Jesus. Only the ignorant will NOT be blessed by God's Word in this matter.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I for one am not blessed or informed with the way you try and defend your interpretation of the verse in question. Are you saying that I am ignorant?
- Status