Who gave them the authority to OMIT ?

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

Pastor Larry,( not my pastor ), you just don`t want a final authority in your life or your church, so you can decide what`s biblical for you.
TC, the catholics DID NOT compile the Textus-
Receptus,there is no catholic doctrine found in
it. How you could claim to love God and his Word
( Ps. 138:2 )and say the great WHORE has her hand
in the Bible this nation was founded on,is more
than I can take.
You are ( snipped , snipped , snipped ) I
better not say, you and the Liberals that run
this ILLUSION of scholars and theologians have
rejected the truth and are Hard Hearted to the
point of no return...watch out...remember Rom.1:28
about the Reprobate Mind .


Yaw can`t stand it, you must provoke a KJBO
to anger...You Beat All I`ve ever seen !

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

AMEN...Anti- Alexandrian...That`s good preaching !!!

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

gb93433...you don`t want to here what you`d be called in our church...Dr. Bob doesn`t want to here it either !

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:

TC, the catholics DID NOT compile the Textus-
Receptus,there is no catholic doctrine found in
it.


Yaw can`t stand it, you must provoke a KJBO
to anger...You Beat All I`ve ever seen !

Timotheus, The compiler for the Greek NT, upon which the KJV was based upon was the Liberal Humanist Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus. It seems like your sect teachers forgot to tell that truth.

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

Anti-Alexandrian...wonder why they can`t see the Devil`s oldest trick of OMITTING ? Does
spiritual decernment sound like the problem to
you ?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Johnv:
If a verse appears in the TR, but not in the LXX, does the LXX "omit" it. or did the TR "add" it? The question could just as readily be asked "who gave them the authority to add?"

Uh, the LXX is Old Testament and the TR is New Testament, so your question is meaningless!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by TC:
Who gave Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus authority to compile and print his own greek text? How is it that it is ok for him to change the Word of God to suit what he thought it should say and that it is ok for the KJV translators to follow Erasmus's lead and do the same thing with the already existing English Bibles, but it is horrible when anybody else does the same thing?

KJVO Double Standard #239:

1. When Erasmus edits the source
of the proto-KJV - it is O.K.
2. When Westcott & Hort edit the source
after the "received text" - they
commit a sin.

KJVO Double Standard #240:
1. When Anglicans translate the KJV -
this is O.K.
2. When Anglican meddle with the source -
they commit a sin.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Timotheus, The compiler for the Greek NT, upon which the KJV was based upon was the Liberal Humanist Roman Catholic Priest Erasmus. It seems like your sect teachers forgot to tell that truth.

Orville, that's good preaching, if I do say so myself!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Real question is "Who gave the AV Anglican paedobaptizing priests permission to ADD to the Word of God?"

Nobody had to because they didn't. Even Westcott and Hort admit that Erasmus did not do any "modern scientific textual criticism" but merely passed along the commonly received text. The KJV is based on that commonly received text. It was the exclusive Greek text from about the 6th century through the 18th century.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Anti-Alexandrian...wonder why they can`t see the Devil`s oldest trick of OMITTING ? Does
spiritual decernment sound like the problem to
you ?

Pride!! Most hate the idea of admitting they are wrong.......

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bro. Tim L. Bynum: " ... you just don`t want a final authority
in your life or your church, so you can decide what`s biblical for you."

So, I desided that in 2004 I'd use the
King James Version, 1769 Edition (KJV1769).
How about that, same conclusion you had,
totally different reason.

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

That`s good preaching , also...AMEN

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Anti-Alexandrian...wonder why they can`t see the Devil`s oldest trick of OMITTING ? Does
spiritual decernment sound like the problem to
you ?

Pride!! Most hate the idea of admitting they are wrong....... </font>[/QUOTE]Pot calling the kettle black. It would be interesting to see how many have left the MV position to become KJVO, and how many myriads have left the KJVO ( Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect) to accept MV's. Thankfully, the former sect members let go of their pride.

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

DECICED...That`s how you spell that...Ed

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

Orvie...that`s called a compromiser...also-ran

 

[Orvie]

Tim B- where did the Anglican translators, authorized by the Baptist hating king get their Final Authority before 1611?

 

[Charles Meadows]

So Bro Tim Bynum says the LIBERALS know it all!

Well that's a shame. Really it is. But the average liberal isn't afraid to read something that might be a little different than he/she was taught. Too many "conservatives" are way too proud of being ignorant of facts. That's not all conservatives thankfully - just some.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
Orvie...that`s called a compromiser...also-ran

I call it waking up from a sleep. Most KJVO's are

when it comes to facts.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
Anti-Alexandrian...wonder why they can`t see the Devil`s oldest trick of OMITTING ? Does
spiritual decernment sound like the problem to
you ?

To the contrary, the devil's oldest trick that we know of is adding, not omitting. He asked Eve if God said they must not eat from ANY of the trees in the garden, which is MORE than what God had said.

Now, getting to the ground on this thing, I take it you must accept Mark 16:9-20 as scripture because your KJV has it. So-- do you speak with 'tongues?' do you drink poison? do you pick up serpents? If you don't, according to this passage you are not among "them that believe" since those are the signs of that particular group. If you say this is outdated and you can nullify it, you are doing what you accuse advocates of modern translations of doing.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
You are not telling the truth because you are misinformed about the manuscript evidence.

There seems to be a lot of that going around!

Unless you know something I don't.

That is a distinct possibility!

When is the earliest manuscript containing 1 John 5:7,8? If my studies are right the earliest manuscript containing those verses is the sixteenth century. Doesn't that seem odd that none have been found with an earlier dating?

There are presently 4 Greek manuscripts containing the comma. They are a 16th century ms (#61), a 12th century ms (#88) which has the comma written in the margin by a corrector's hand, a 15th century ms (#629), and an 11th century ms which again has the comma written in the margin by a corrector's hand.