Who gave them the authority to OMIT ?

[skanwmatos]

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.

It seems as if yours forgot to tell you the truth too.

Liberal: Uh, how was Erasmus "liberal" theologically? Did he deny any of the fundamentals of the faith? Just how was he theologically liberal?

Humanist: Do you even know what "humanist" meant in the 16th century? It certainly didn't mean "secular humanist" as it does today?

Roman Catholic Priest: Are you sure? If so, why does a Roman Catholic historian, Hugh Pope, under an official Roman Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, say Erasmus was a heretic from Rome? Why does he write that Erasmus scoffed at images,relics, pilgrimages and Good Friday observances? Why does he say Erasmus had serious doubts about every article of Catholic faith: the mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting, transubstantiation and abstinence? Why does Philip Schaff say that Catholics reviled Erasmus as "Errasmus" because of his errors; "Arasmus" because he plowed up old truths and traditions; and "Erasinus" because he made an ass of himself by his writings? Why does he write that they even called him "Behemoth" and "Antichrist?" Why did the Sorbonne condemn 37 articles extracted from his writings in 1527? Why were his books burned in Spain?

Why did the Roman Catholic Diego Lopez Zuniga write a 54 page essay against Erasmus entitled Erasmi Roterodami blasphemiae et impietates (The Blasphemies and Impieties of Erasmus of Rotterdam) in 1522?

It seems that, perhaps, your teachers were not all that thorough either?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Skan is right on the one about Erasmus as a humanist. Totally different meaning from our humanism of today. As far as liberal. He was not really a theological liberal although he WAS a scholar through and through! He Bro Tim Bynum & Co did you catch that - I say he was a scholar! He likely would have been considered a moderate today - willing to use knowledge and logic in theological studies but not willing to compromise the kerygmatic aspects of the faith.

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

COMPROMISERS...Pink tea and Lemonaid, pussy
footin` COMPROMISERS !
Jack Hyles is in heaven right now, but if he was here...that`s what he would say to Orvie and
Charles and...............................

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

I wish Bob Gray from Longview Texas was here to
see this bunch of BOLOGNA SAUSAGE.
He`s probabilly keeping some soul ou of hell
right now...That`s something you DEEPER LIFERS
know nothing about !!!!


Amen Bro. Bynum

 

[Charles Meadows]

If Jack Hyles WERE here I'm sure he'd be right there with you Bro Tim. That wouldn't be a big surprise.

Bro Tim you really ought to talk to Will Kinney or Sam Gipp or someone who at least makes an attempt to debate in a reasonable fashion. Your pride in lack of knowledge does not help your witness.

By the way Jesus was smart! -

- and was not afraid to rock the theological boat of the gobstoppers (QS-inspired word here ). You should take heed.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Alcott:
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.

If you would study that passage a little more closely you would notice that the "them that believe" refers to those who where there and alive at that time. It does not refer to all believers in every time subsequent to that time. A bit of simple exegesis would clear up your faulty thinking regarding these verses.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alcott:
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.

If you would study that passage a little more closely you would notice that the "them that believe" refers to those who where there and alive at that time. It does not refer to all believers in every time subsequent to that time. A bit of simple exegesis would clear up your faulty thinking regarding these verses.

</font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that it doesn't apply to today?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
So are you saying that it doesn't apply to today?

I am saying that you can't claim a promise which was not made to you. The "signs to follow" followed those who were there and believing at that time. It was never intended to be applied to all believers since that time. The tenses indicate it was to them, not to us.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Who gave them the authority to OMIT "s" in
the KJV1769 Ruth 15:3?
The "s" was in KJV1769.
Yep, "she" becomes "he". A minor matter,
but changes it from Ruth going
into town (KJV1611) and Boaz going into
town (KJV1769)

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

</font>[/QUOTE]I am aware of the marginal notes. They are not classified as scripture though. I am sure you do know that many marginal notes eventually got into the text over time. But if I did take your position it still leaves a long time period between the eleventh century and the first century. That still seems odd to include it if it has only been found in the margin and not before the eleventh century at that.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
So are you saying that it doesn't apply to today?

I am saying that you can't claim a promise which was not made to you. The "signs to follow" followed those who were there and believing at that time. It was never intended to be applied to all believers since that time. The tenses indicate it was to them, not to us. </font>[/QUOTE]All of scripture was written to "them" and not us. But the majority of it is applicable. So on what basis have you decided that it does not apply to believers today.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
If Jack Hyles WERE here I'm sure he'd be right there with you Bro Tim. That wouldn't be a big surprise.

Bro Tim you really ought to talk to Will Kinney or Sam Gipp or someone who at least makes an attempt to debate in a reasonable fashion. Your pride in lack of knowledge does not help your witness.

By the way Jesus was smart! -

- and was not afraid to rock the theological boat of the gobstoppers (QS-inspired word here ). You should take heed.

Jesus did know the scriptures and the power of God.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
What is purpose of totally removing verses
that are clearly in the original T.R., and who gave the authority to Westcott & Hort to do it ?
And where did the authority come from for
Zondervon to print it under the illusion that it is the complete Word of God ?

Please give us one example
where this happened. Thank you.

BTW, it is only fair to tell you this
is a trick question. For you obviously
don't read the source that
you think Westcott & Hort meddeled with.
And if you can't handle "quote" then
i doubt you can handle the Greek letter
fonts.

And if you should master these techniques
of reading Greek and finding a way
to get the Greek fonts to cross the
internet barrier -- then i'll suddenly
find that the modern version you quote
has that verse in the FOOTNOTES

Gotcha!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
All of scripture was written to "them" and not us. But the majority of it is applicable. So on what basis have you decided that it does not apply to believers today.

As I already responded, the tenses.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
All of scripture was written to "them" and not us. But the majority of it is applicable. So on what basis have you decided that it does not apply to believers today.

As I already responded, the tenses. </font>[/QUOTE]Tenses alone? If that is the case then I assume you do not apply Mt. 28:19,20 too.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
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 !

WOW All that from two simple questions. I sure can feel all the love in your response.

1. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic scholar and he did dedicate the first copy of the greek text he compiled to Pope Leo X. Funny how many KJVO's defend this and yet put down the RCC at the same time.

2. Erasmus was influenced by Jerome and Origin.
See:

Origin, Jerome, Erasmus, and the KJV

3. Once again, the Geneva Bible is what the pilgrims brought over from England when they fled the Church of England's persecution.

Sounds like you can't handle the truth. But that's still not a good reason for such a childish outburst.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
...that passage a little more closely you would notice that the "them that believe" refers to those who where there and alive at that time. It does not refer to all believers in every time subsequent to that time.

Alright, you are saying that passage is absolutely useless to us, that it's inclusion in a manuscript or a translation thereof is good for nothing but to cause confusion and splintering... yet it should still be there because [snipped], who also repudiated it precepts, decided it should be there.

But obviously the pronoun "them" included more than those that were immediately present, as you claim yourself in saying it was for "those who were there and alive at that time" [or if that was not your meaning, the many at Pentecost who did those things, as well as later at Caesarea, et al, were doing bogus acts]. So "them" was inclusive of greater times and locations. Therefore, what is your "exegesis" as to the precise time and place limitations of "them"?

As for me, I just drop it on grounds there is a reasonable doubt as to whether that passage belongs in scripture in the first place. But YOU believe it belongs there, yet you repudiate an attempt to carry it out. Logic???

[ February 11, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by 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 !

]

1 Cor. 13:11 in the KJV, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

 

[Bro. Tim L. Bynum]

Ed...I`m just one of those " common people "
like those that heard Jesus gladly ( Mk. 12:37 )
I can`t think of ONE TIME that Jesus spoke
well of the scholars like you...Ye rather He rebuked them and with many WOES...Don`t turn that
around and twist it to say anything about the ones that King James used...God had His hand in that work...His hand is against your work...
that goes for you too Charles, Tiny Tim, Pastor
Larry ( Not My Pastor ) my Pastor has God given
Spiritual Discernment.


Ps : Jack Hyles did more for the cause of Christ in one week than all of you ALSO-RANs
have done in your whole life, You know who I think
your working for, Don`t you !
I smell a quote coming...you better be glad I
can`t figure out how to do it.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Alcott:
Alright, you are saying that passage is absolutely useless to us, that it's inclusion in a manuscript or a translation thereof is good for nothing but to cause confusion and splintering... yet it should still be there because Jimmy's boys, who also repudiated it precepts, decided it should be there.

Please do not lie about what I said. I said nothing of the sort, and you know it!

As for me, I just drop it on grounds there is a reasonable doubt as to whether that passage belongs in scripture in the first place. But YOU believe it belongs there, yet you repudiate an attempt to carry it out. Logic???

I accept it as an historical narrative of what was said regarding the sign gifts and how they would manifest themselves in the lives of those to whom Christ was speaking. I have not said nor implied that I "repudiate an attempt to carry it out." It was obviously "carried out" by the disciples as they spread the gospel through the world of that day.