Why is it called the Texus Receptus (recieved text)?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I see you have trouble reading. I said that men took them out and that God put them back in. Men do give and take back. For example, King James wanted to get rid of the Geneva Bible footnotes lest someone read them and question his divine rights as king. He who controls the flow of information controls the masses. So, it is men who take away and restrict information so they can remain in control. But God in His grace, gave the information back to us so we don't have to blindly follow the masses like a herd of cattle. He wants us to study and think for ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is assuming God would allow this sort of thing at first, then take it away, then to add it back again? This is basically saying, God has no control, nor care about these things. God did not wait 300 years to add them back in again. All footnotes do is add doubt to the word of God. They draw man's attention, to man's opinions and interpretations, rather than relying upon God alone to give understanding. God desires us to recieve understanding from Him through HIS WORDS OF TRUTH, not man's opinions of it.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Originally posted by michelle:
Like I said Hank, you need to study that period of History a little bit better, and without bias. The fact of the matter is, that the KJB translation was the one God chose and willed. He has made this evident, regardless of your biased outlook on it.

That is your opinion - which you have not proved. Where in the KJV or any other Bible does it say that the KJV is it.

You really need to get past this bias that you have because of your trying to show or prove something that doesn't exist - a false man made label. Why spend all your time and effort fighting the truth, rather than defending it, and exposing and warning of those things that have altered it?

The same can be said of you. You admit you haven't read the MV's for yourself, yet you fight against what God is doing through them - saving and sanctifying His people. You rely on the writings of men for your information and then falsely accuse us.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
That is your opinion - which you have not proved. Where in the KJV or any other Bible does it say that the KJV is it.

--------------------------------------------------

It is not my opinion. It is my faith, and the evidence of History within the churches. I cannot prove faith to you. You however can see the history of the churches. (Psalm 12, Hebrews 11, 1 Tim. 3:15)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The same can be said of you. You admit you haven't read the MV's for yourself, yet you fight against what God is doing through them - saving and sanctifying His people. You rely on the writings of men for your information and then falsely accuse us.
--------------------------------------------------

I don't need to eat the <snip> fruit, to know it is <snip> fruit. It is evident against the good fruit. For some that know not the good fruit, and only diet on the <edit> fruit, will never know the difference, and might become sick. However, when one can see the good fruit against the <snip> fruit, why then would one desire to eat of that <snip> fruit? And why then would they not show the others that there is good fruit to be eaten? And how can this be done? By comparing the two. One does not have to eat of it, to know it is <snip>, for there are obvious marks/signs <snip>.(Luke 6:43-44)


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

<Attacks on the Word of God deleted by moderator>

[ September 09, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The name "TR" is no longer being discussed.

We are on page five - I am planning on closing it by about 4.00 this afternoon CDT unless there are objections.

 

[Bro Tony]

<see edited statment above>(Luke 6:43-44)

Another attack on the Word of God. I am getting a little tired of your brazen <attack snipped> against God's Holy Words. You state that others have attacked the KJV, yet to this date there have been none and you cannot point to any. You need to <attack snipped> of God's Word and be warned for you will stand before Him with the words you have said against His Word.

Bro Tony

[ September 09, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[TC]

This is assuming God would allow this sort of thing at first, then take it away, then to add it back again? This is basically saying, God has no control, nor care about these things. God did not wait 300 years to add them back in again. All footnotes do is add doubt to the word of God. They draw man's attention, to man's opinions and interpretations, rather than relying upon God alone to give understanding. God desires us to recieve understanding from Him through HIS WORDS OF TRUTH, not man's opinions of it.

God did not wait until 1611 to give His perfect
Word to the English speaking people either. They had them in Wycliff's, Tyndale's, Great, Bishops, Coverdales, and Geneva as well as the ones I missed. And they all differ from each other and the KJV. God did not retire in 1611 and today God still gives us His perfect Word in modern English versions.

God gave men free will. None of us are robots. We can and do think for ourselves. He gave us a brain for a reason - so that we can use it. Footnotes are nothing to be feared and don't do what you say. The KJV translators said footnotes were good and should be used. In fact, they did use them. Even though you may wish they didn't, I'm glad they did so I can study the information for myself.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
God gave men free will. None of us are robots. We can and do think for ourselves. He gave us a brain for a reason - so that we can use it. Footnotes are nothing to be feared and don't do what you say. The KJV translators said footnotes were good and should be used. In fact, they did use them. Even though you may wish they didn't, I'm glad they did so I can study the information for myself.
--------------------------------------------------

To this I do agree. However, once we are saved, we are under the will of God in all aspects of our lives. One cannot be saved and say that they have free will. One either serves God in God's will, or ones own self. Our Lord Jesus Christ bought us with His own blood.

Matt. 6

9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Well, the fact of the matter is, God must not have liked them, because He saw to it they were taken out.

The fact of the matter is that you don't know what God thinks of them. You only have your opinion of what God thinks of them. The Geneva Bible is still here and so is it's footnotes. Both are easily accessable today. So, perhaps God did like them after all.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is that you don't know what God thinks of them. You only have your opinion of what God thinks of them. The Geneva Bible is still here and so is it's footnotes. Both are easily accessable today. So, perhaps God did like them after all.
--------------------------------------------------

Just out of curiosity, how many faithful churches today, and in the past have used the Geneva Bible as their sole authority? Today, it seems as if the Geneva Bible is only used by individual people, for individual reasons, and not by any faithful churches, at least that I am aware of. This speaks volumes.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

Just out of curiosity, how many faithful churches today, and in the past have used the Geneva Bible as their sole authority? Today, it seems as if the Geneva Bible is only used by individual people, for individual reasons, and not by any faithful churches, at least that I am aware of. This speaks volumes.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Not one of the churches in the New Testament exist today. So where does that put them?

 

[michelle]

Well you all might not call omittions, additions and altering of God's word of truth as {Bible atack deleted by moderator>, but I for one do. I say the truth like it is, regardless of who it might offend.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ September 09, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Not one of the churches in the New Testament exist today. So where does that put them?
--------------------------------------------------


I belong to a New Testament church today, don't you?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Just out of curiosity, how many faithful churches today, and in the past have used the Geneva Bible as their sole authority? Today, it seems as if the Geneva Bible is only used by individual people, for individual reasons, and not by any faithful churches, at least that I am aware of. This speaks volumes.

Only because you look for any reason to degrade anything that isn't the KJV.

 

[michelle]

<snipped by moderator>


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ September 09, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[HankD]

I have NEVER SAID, nor do I believe the KJB translators were INSPIRED. Please stop putting words in my mouth, making it seem as though I believe such.

OK, since it is now unclear to me what you believe let me ask a question.

Are the words of the King James Bible (any revision, any edition) inspired ?
Yes or No. We can go from there.

Like I said Hank, you need to study that period of History a little bit better, and without bias. The fact of the matter is, that the KJB translation was the one God chose and willed. He has made this evident, regardless of your biased outlook on it.

I have made it clear what my convictions are michelle.

This is a debate board. When those with whom I may have an agreement with are illogical, unfair, biased, practice a double standard and slander others, I may choose to, and have, defended those persons who are the object of their wrath.

The Church of England never made a clear and definitive break from the Church of Rome. Born out of rebellion, their “bishops” produced a Bible which promoted their specialized Anglo-Catholic doctrine, killing and persecuting those Baptists (and others) who opposed them and shed their blood. If this is a bias, so be it, my hands are clear of their blood.

You say God made the KJB evident as to His choice but when asked to show the evidence you give your opinion or your feelings usually followed by a direct or oblique ad hominem, although you seem to have backed of at least for the moment.

You really need to get past this bias that you have because of your trying to show or prove something that doesn't exist - a false man made label.

What label? Do you mean KJVO, if so I really don’t care if you believe it to be false, I will continue to use it. There is an old saying “if it waddles, swims and quacks, guess what it is?”. You are certainly not one to talk about the use of labels.

Why spend all your time and effort fighting the truth, rather than defending it,

The truth doesn’t need to be defended, debated sure but not defended.

and exposing and warning of those things that have altered it?

How about exposing and warning against those who have a double-standard.
Those who change the definitions of or refine terms in the middle of a discussion.
Those who yell foul when their own standards are used against them.
Etc, etc, etc...

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I apologise for closing this thread after your post. I think I make my point in saying that you are not the cause for its closure.