 |
|
 |
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:37:34 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah
<...@wi.rr.com
God is not the author of confusion and ALL of the KJV Bible is
"divinely inspired" so you better quit spreading your damnable
doctrine because you'll be held accountable.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:06:13 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:21:49 -0700 (PDT), Carl <...@nettally.comwrote:
You're like the atheists that won't believe. If you fail to diligently
seek God about the truth, there won't be any excuses for you. No
wonder Christianity is failing in America and it's getting worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:51:56 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:06:13 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
No son, you are! And your constant denials are pathetic!
You don't even care of people believe in God or not!
In fact, I have not seem one message from you that
calls people to Christ!
You are not out here evangelizing people to become
Christians, but KJV'ers!
So in other words, to Hell with Christ! You must believe
in the KJV, or perish!
--
Pastor Dave
The atheists and even many "spiritual" people wish
for "Utopia". Little do they realize that this word,
coined by Thomas Moore in a novel, was really
a kind of joke. The word comes from the Greek,
"ou-topos" and is a Greek pun and literally means,
"no place" and the thrust of the novel, is that
what it all boils down to, as it turns out, is that,
"no place is a good place". This is why he used
this word! :)
The atheists and even many "spiritual" people wish
for "Utopia". Little do they realize that this word,
coined by Thomas Moore in a novel, was really
a kind of joke. The word comes from the Greek,
"ou-topos" and is a Greek pun and literally means,
"no place" and the thrust of the novel, is that
what it all boils down to, as it turns out, is that,
"no place is a good place". This is why he used
this word! :)
And yet, of course, the atheists in their ignorance
still dream of it and so do the "spiritual" folks and
even Christians today, who have taken on the new
(as of the early 1800's) self pleasing and aggrandizing
new belief called, "Dispensationalism".
And so, before the Christians laugh at the atheists,
remember that if you are one of those Christians,
then you also look for the same place. You see,
when you believe that one day Christ will leave Heaven
(think about that... LEAVE HEAVEN... you also look for
this place on Earth, that will simply never exist and so,
YOU ALSO look for this same "Utopia"! (:
Heaven is not a place that God and His Christ are going
to leave, to come and live on a planet. How do we know
that for sure? Easy! :)
God says in His word that He does not dwell in buildings
(Acts 7:48-50) and yet, you expect Him to live on a
physical plane, even though He is outside of it and is
a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth,
as the Scriptures say (John 4:24).
God does not come to live within His creation, but rather,
is above it! And so, when you acknowledge that He is
above His creation (and Dispensationalists surely do indeed
acknowledge that) and then claim that He will come here
with His Son to live, which means they will indeed have to
be physical, human beings at that point, then you have
indeed belittled God and denied His word and have tried
to make Him as small as you are, since His doing this
would make Him subject to this world's physical laws
if He is going to be physical,which is the exact claim
of Dispensationalism and therefore, also to linear time,
which would then have God aging!
Think about this! Think hard about this! Think really hard
and you will find that all you can do when shown this, is to
immediately try to make things upon the fly to try to get
around this and that should tell you something, amen?
Your only other option is to personally attack me and
pretend that means you have defended your belief.
Either way, it's really very sad!
And so, shame on anyone who believes that sort of thing!!!
Shame! Shame!! Shame!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:53:23 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:37:34 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
I'm sorry, but what you're stating here is simply not true
and I think it is *you* who should be careful here!
Don't get me wrong... I'm not validating the other
person's comments, but yours are simply out of line!
Fact #1) The KJV has some translation errors, period.
That is *easily* proved! And so, that means
that while "the work" may have been inspired,
it is not an infallible translation, period.
Fact #2) To point your finger at someone and say that
they're going to go to Hell (which is what you
are saying when you call their doctrine that),
because they question the KJV translation,
is to place your faith in the KJV and to put it
at the same level as God!
Fact #3) It is wrong to tell someone that they'll stand
before God, being judged on whether or not
they liked the KJV or not! They do not go to
Heaven or Hell, based on whether or not they
bowed before the KJV translation!
You're really getting out of line here! If you have a problem
with what he said, then show him how the dates are correct
and show him what a good translation the KJV is. But to
attack him and tell him he's going to Hell because he thinks
he found a fault in the KJV translation's time line is simply
ridiculous! But now I know why you were saying in that
other thread, that "time lines aren't important anyway".
Well frankly sir, that's a copout! You don't get to claim
that the KJV is an infallible translation and then brush off
what *appears* to be a time line error in it! That's simply
self-contradictory! And if you can't demonstrate that he
is in error, then why do you believe what you believe
about the KJV?
It is one thing to respond by saying that he is in error
about his conclusion and then encourage some examination.
It is another entirely to try to side step the issue, by claiming
that the time line isn't important anyway.
The fact is, if the KJV is an infallible translation, which is
what you have repeatedly implied that it is, then it shouldn't
have any time line errors at all! Not a one!
Of course, I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that
your approach to the issue is wrong and you don't get
to pretend to be wanting division to go away in the church
and then point your finger at someone and basically say,
"Kneel before the KJV as God's only true translation
(word of God), divinely inspired all of it, or burn in Hell!".
That's simply ridiculous and it's another contradiction
that you present about yourself! I'm sorry, but it's true!
--
Pastor Dave
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself,
but talent instantly recognizes genius."
- Sir Arthur Doyle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:21:47 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:53:23 -0400, Pastor Dave
<...@_gmail.com
Why should God let his book have lies in it? Then it would be worthy
to be burned.
The KJV Bible is either divinely inspired or it's not. If it has just
ONE untruth in it, then it is not worthy to be called God's Word.
God holds us accountable for all things, good or evil, and he is the
judge. God is not the author of confusion, lies or errors for that
matter. The KJV Bible is written the way God has ordained it to be. If
you got some problems with that, then pray about it and pray hard.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book." You better watch out, you're not defying me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:22:24 GMT, "wax" <...@worldnet.att.net
Did the KJV translators have a love affair with the word "even"?
The adverb "even" is used 1,032 times in the KJV Old Testament, and in 928
of these cases there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. The KJV
translators would write "even so" for "so", "even as" for "as", and "even
unto" where we would put "to" or "as far as."
The word "even" was often used to show equivalency, e.g. "The men of the
city, even the men of Sodon," instead of "Thye men of the city, the men of
Sodom," (Gen. 19:4). Or "The man, even Lot," instead of "The man Lot" (Gen
19:9). The readers of Genesis 10:21 are likely to wonder what was wrong
with Shem when they read, "even to him were children born."
--Wax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:11:37 +1000, "Von Rotchild" <...@illuminati.org
"Just Visiting" <...@4ax.com...
Please tell us:
1. When and where GOD said that the Bible is HIS book?
2. When and where did GOD personally write the Bible?
3. When and where did GOD personally translate the Bible?
The only part (according to the Bible) which GOD personally wrote is 10
Commandements.
KJV version is "translated" for purpose of glorifying King James.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:04:26 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:11:37 +1000, "Von Rotchild"
<...@illuminati.org
What is YOUR problem? If the KJV Bible is not divinely inspired then
it is not influenced by Divinity and it is like any other book on the
shelf. This is what makes it a sacred and holy book. God can influence
people to do things just like the devil can influence people to do
things. King James had his own selfish purpose for translating the
Bible but, nevertheless, he was fulfulling God's wishes. Of course,
you won't believe this for the same reasons atheists don't believe in
God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:48:48 GMT, "wax" <...@worldnet.att.net
"Just Visiting" <...@sbcglobal.net
That can be said of any translation of the Bible, whether its KJV, JPL, LXX,
or Vulgate. Which translations do you consider the "word of God", and
which translations are just "like any other book on the shelf"?
--Wax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:49:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:04:26 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
It isn't a problem, when one considers what you claim
is "proof". You invite this type of skepticism, when you
act like such an ass about proving your claims!
--
Pastor Dave
"One who dominates cannot serve." - Unknown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:24:13 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:21:47 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
You're not dealing with what I said. You think that you can
begin your argument by assuming your argument is true.
First you must prove that the KJV is infallible and hasn't got
one single error in it. Then and only then, do you get to
say what you claim about it.
If that's your criteria, then by your own criteria, it's not
divinely inspired, because it does have errors in it, period.
There are single word translation errors in the KJV and
that's a fact. SO remember, you're the one saying it's
not divinely inspired, because you made the rule.
Continuing to call it "his book", as if you have already
proved your claim, does not prove your claim and
since you made the claim, the burden of proof is
on you.
I.e., repeating a claim, does not prove said claim.
You're trying to side step the issue and you're acting like
an ass. You hold up the KJV as if it is your god and then
tell people that they will be damned, if they don't agree.
Show us where God said that in the Bible.
I also notice that you didn't respond to the following...
--
Pastor Dave
"In America, through pressure of conformity, there
is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from."
-Peter Ustinov
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:00:42 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:24:13 -0400, Pastor Dave
<...@_gmail.com
I don't know what kind of miracles come out of your ministry but we
hold that the KJV Bible is a holy book ordained by God. We take its
contents by faith that it does not contradict itself, contain mistakes
or errors that it has all be divinely finalized under the infuence of
the Holy Spirit. You can believe as you want just as atheists believe
as they want.
OK, let's put it this way. If it does have single word translation
errors in the human eye, then it has been approved by God. God's ways
are perfect and the KJV Bible is written and finalized as he wishes.
It only 'appeared' that Jesus lost the battle when he died on the
cross but it was the greatest victory of all time when he was
resurrected.
You really do sound like an atheist. The KJV Bible is his book written
by those under the influence of the Spirit - the major and minor
prophets and Christ's apostles. If you cannot trust the writings of
these men of God, then I certainly can't persuade you.
You are responsible to find the truth as atheists are responsible to
find God. If all of us don't take the steps to find God or his truth
as written in the KJV Bible, there won't be any excuses for anybody.
Yeah, and show verifiable, objective evidence that God exists. You
don't want to believe for the same reasons that the atheists don't
want to believe. I'm sorry, you'll need to diligently seek God for
yourself to find the truth - it's what we're to do anyway.
Why do I only believe in the KJV Bible? Our church uses this book with
authority against sickness, disease, devil possession and other
bondages and thousands of people are being delivered.
God doesn't make mistakes and neither does his Word. I sincerely ask
you to really seek God on this if this bothers you. Ask and ye shall
receive, right? If you're honest hearted, the Holy Spirit will reveal
things to you and it won't matter what people say to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:12:58 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:00:42 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
See the new thread, called.....
*** THE KJV IS THE ONLY WORD OF GOD FOR ALL TIME!!! ***
And no, snipping or ignoring my text, doesn't mean that
no one else saw it and that you don't have to deal with it,
as we both know you will have to, whether you respond
to it or not!
--
Pastor Dave
"Other things may change us, but we start and end
with family." - Anthony Brandt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:11:09 GMT, "wax" <...@worldnet.att.net
"Just Visiting" <...@sbcglobal.net
When you get right down to it, "faith" is the weakest argument which can be
made. Atheists and others intelligent individuals try to base their beliefs
on more solid ground.
--Wax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:51:46 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:54:21 -0400, Ordained
<...@tampabay.rr.com
So in other words, we don't know anything, which conclusion
you base on your misuse of a passage.
Paul was speaking of THE COVENANTS, not the language
used to write them!
And furthermore, your claim negates God's ability to chose
which language He wants them written down in!
If that is true, then why is it that everything that
the Apostles preached, came from the Old Testament?
You seem to forget that they didn't have an NT then!
The Law was indeed crucified with Christ, on the cross.
We agree on that.
I do not belong to an organized religion, but you seem
to have no problem arrogantly assuming that you know
me and what I believe, while ignoring all of what I have
actually said!
--
Pastor Dave
"Character is the foundation stone upon which one must build
to win respect. Just as no worthy building can be erected
on a weak foundation, so no lasting reputation worthy of
respect can be built on a weak character." - -R. C. Samsel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:28:09 -0400, Ordained <...@tampabay.rr.com
And you have no problem arrogantly assuming that you know
me and what I believe, while ignoring all of what I have
actually said!
"Theology is an attempt to explain a subject by men
who do not understand it. The intent is not to tell
the truth but to satisfy the questioner".
Elbert Hubbard
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"<html<head <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"</head<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"<pre wrap=""me and what I believe, while ignoring all of what I have
<blockquote cite...@4ax.com"
type="cite" <pre wrap=""<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href...@tampabay.rr.com"
</pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap=""this nonsense but here goes. This rant is the most
ridiculous nonsense I have read in a long time.
Neither one of you know anything of what you speak.
Both of you take and use only what suits your life
style. Neither one of you are right. Why do you
suppose the original New Testament was written
and written in Greek.
"If the first was perfect there would have been no need
for the second".
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, a language
that has no vowels and two of the consonants are missing.
</pre </blockquote <pre wrap=""So in other words, we don't know anything, which conclusion
you base on your misuse of a passage.
Paul was speaking of THE COVENANTS, not the language
used to write them!
And furthermore, your claim negates God's ability to chose
which language He wants them written down in!
</pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap=""to be together in one book.
</pre </blockquote <pre wrap=""If that is true, then why is it that everything that
the Apostles preached, came from the Old Testament?
You seem to forget that they didn't have an NT then!
</pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap="" </pre </blockquote <pre wrap=""The Law was indeed crucified with Christ, on the cross.
We agree on that.
</pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap="" </pre </blockquote <pre wrap=""I do not belong to an organized religion, but you seem
to have no problem arrogantly assuming that you know
me and what I believe, while ignoring all of what I have
actually said!
--
Pastor Dave
"Character is the foundation stone upon which one must build
to win respect. Just as no worthy building can be erected
on a weak foundation, so no lasting reputation worthy of
respect can be built on a weak character." - -R. C. Samsel
</pre</blockquote</body</html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:17:08 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:28:09 -0400, Ordained
<...@tampabay.rr.com
Excuse me, sir! But I have responded to your attack on me!
Don't try to turn the tables here! You came at me and made
assumptions about me!
--
Pastor Dave
Creation is the stage upon which God is revealed
His redemptive plan. We live out our part in the
history of redemption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:39:27 GMT, "wax" <...@worldnet.att.net
"Pastor Dave" <...@_gmail.com
Agreed. Christianity is a rather disorganized religion.
--Wax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:07:32 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze <...@apexmail.com
On Apr 19, 9:21 pm, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
[snip]
I'm going to repost a very long old post of mine about the accuracy of
the KJV - or rather, the Textus Receptus, which is the base text used
in the translation of the KJV. Feel free to critique...
New Testament Criticism and the Textus Receptus
Introduction
Textual Criticism - the evaluation of survived copies of a text in
order to establish the most reliable reading - is a common tool in all
disciplines of scholarship that concern ancient manuscripts, for
example Assyriology, Egyptology, Ancient and Medieval History. This
evaluation is necessary for the following reasons:
1. In most cases the original text is lost and all we have is a number
of copies.
2. Copying was by no means exact, for instance no NT manuscripts agree
100% of the time.
3. The more copies are made, the more errors in writing have a chance
to accumulated, especially as time goes by.
Therefore, textual criticism is a reasoned attempt to restore the text
as near as possible to its original. This is done mostly by using two
kinds of evidence, external and internal.
Internal evidence is based on logic: "Which reading best explains the
others?" "Is there an easy way for this reading to have been converted
to that one?" If two different Greek words used in the same passage
resemble each other considerably, the meaning in context usually is
enough to settle the matter. For a hypothetical example let us take
the English sentence: "Mary showed me her new coat." And for a variant
reading: "Mary showed me her new moat." Unless from the full textual
context we can infer that Mary is an owner of a Medieval castle, the
reading 'coat' is the more reasonable choice.
Other elements used in evaluating internal evidence are known scribal
habits and the author's style. Even early on, the question of style
has been used to evaluate if a given text was written by its supposed
author. Origen rejected the Pauline origin of the Letter to Hebrews
(which does not give the name of its author) on this basis, as do most
of the modern scholars. Similarily, if there's a large corpus of texts
by one author - a good example is the Pauline Letters - it can be
inferred from the writer's other texts which reading is the most
fitting to his known style.
Human psychology also acounts for some variant readings. If a given
familiar sentence appears elsewhere in an almost similar, but longer
form, there is a marked tendency to _include_ the missing words. This
is known as "assimilation of parallels."
Words can also be deleted for purely mechanical reasons. When there
were two occurrences of the same word close together, ancient scribes
could easily take the later word for the first word and delete
everything in between. Lines were occasionally skipped.
External evidence is mostly based on common sense: the older the
manuscript is, the less often it has been copied and re-copied. If the
older manuscripts do not contain the longer readings, it is highly
likely there has been an assimilation of parallels somewhere along the
line.
Now, while the majority of the manuscripts may contain the longer
variants, they can still be considered less reliable, for one of the
major rules in Textual Criticism is: "Manuscripts are to be weighed,
not counted."
Manuscripts of the New Testament
The original texts of the NT were almost certainly written on scrolls
of papyrus. This was the cheapest and the most available writing
material in the 1st century Palestine. Scrolls, however, are very
cumbersome to use after a certain lenght, and a scroll of the Pauline
Letters would have been very difficult to use, especially if the
reader was trying to locate a passage in one of the letters. The
entire NT on a scroll would have been a near impossibility. The
solution was the form of book known as the codex. Indeed, all of our
modern books are in the form of codices. A codex can be of any lenght
and all of its pages are equally accessible. Another important feature
of the codex is that its pages can be written on both sides, thus
conserving expensive writing material. The early Christian church took
to codices with great eagerness, 99% of the known NT manuscripts are
in codex form.
By 1989 there were 5488 manuscripts of the Greek NT catalogued by the
Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research. This amount of
manuscripts, however, does not indicate that all of them are neat
copies of the entire NT, indeed most of them are fragmentary, or
contain only parts of the text. Only 59 of the manuscripts contain the
entire NT text.
In addition to the actual NT manuscripts, other material such as the
NT quotes by the Church Fathers are used in evaluation. This, however,
has some inherent problems. First, we cannot tell whether the Church
Father had a manuscript in front of him or was quoting from memory.
Second, he rarely tells us which book he was quoting from. Third, none
of the original manuscripts of Church Fathers have survived. Almost
all of the copies of the early Church Fathers' writings date from the
Middle Ages. One interesting fact about the Church Fathers' writings
is that a good critical edition of a Father's text or the discovery of
an early manuscript always moves the Father's quote of the NT _away_
from the Textus Receptus and closer to the text of our modern critical
editions of the Greek NT.
The classes of manuscripts are from oldest to youngest: papyri,
uncials, minuscules and lectionares. I will give a brief description
of each of the categories below.
The earliest of the NT manuscriptal finds, the papyri, are found only
in Egypt and by 1989 there were 96 of them catalogued. The climate in
Egypt is dry enough to preserve even the fragile papyri, given that
they were discarded above the inundation line. Despite that, most of
the papyri are fragmentary; some consist of only one or two leaves.
Only a few of the papyri, for example P72 and P46 contain complete
texts. Most of the others are incomplete. The oldest papyrus contains
5 verses from John 18 and is dated 100-150 CE. Most papyri date from
the 3rd and 4th centuries.
The uncials, of which there are 299 samples catalogued, derive their
name from the writing style used in them. In fact, papyri are also
written in uncials, and the difference between papyri and uncials lie
in the writing material: they are written on parchment instead of
papyrus. Uncials become common in the 4th century, and the bulk of
surviving uncials are from 6th to 9th centuries. Being in the codical
form, several of them contain the full NT texts. The best known uncial
manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) 4th century, Codex
Alexandrinus (A) 5th century, and Codex Vaticanus (B) 4th century.
Minuscules, which also derive their name from the writing used in
them, become the major form of manuscripts from 9th century onwards
and some of them were even written after the invention of printing.
2182 of them are catalogued. The most important innovation in
minuscules is the appearance of accents, breathings, word spacing,
paragraphs and punctuation.
The lectionares contain the lessons read in the Greek church in the
order they are read. They are the most numerous of all the manuscript
types, 2281 of them are catalogued. Most lectionares are written with
minuscules, but the oldest of them are written with uncials. Most of
them are late and fairly standardized, and therefore not much used in
evaluation.
Text-types
The NT manuscripts can be classified according to their readings into
three textual types: Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. This
classification is the work of a 19th century scholar, Griesbach, who
realized the manuscripts known to him seemed to fall into three
distinct groups. The largest, by far, he named the "Byzantine",
because most of the manuscripts it included were written in the
Byzantine era. "Alexandrian" gained its name from the fact that its
readings agreed with the NT quotes used by such Alexandrian Fathers as
Origen, and "Western" because it was associated with the Latin
versions used in the estern Roman Empire.
This concept of the text-types was refined in the latter half of the
19th century by Westcott and Hort, who adopted Griesbach's Western and
Byzantine types as given, the Alexandrian they split into two groups
"Neutral" and "Alexandrian" (these new groups are largely abandoned by
modern scholars).
What is more important, however, is that Hort discovered that the
Byzantine text is of late origin. There are many indicators in the
texts that led to this conclusion:
1. There are no Byzantine manuscripts from the first three centuries,
and the earliest translation that uses Byzantine text is Wulfila's
Gothic translation, which was produced in the end of the 4th century.
Other early translations, pre-Vulgate Old Latin, Coptic and Syriac do
not use the Byzantine text-type. Outside the Gospels, there are no
fully Byzantine manuscripts before the 9th century. While there are
isolated Byzantine readings, the earliest Church Father who used the
Byzantine text was Asterius in the 4th century, and he was considered
a heretic.
2. The Byzantine text is a consistently full, smooth text. Any
difficult or disharmonous readings have been smoothed away. This
implies a gradual process of improvement over the years. Of course, we
can postulate a single editor working to smooth the texts and and to
harmonize the difficult readings, but in that early period Textual
Criticism had not been developed yet. Such an editor would have been
forced to invent single-handedly a technique that wouldn't exist till
hundreds of years from his era.
3. The Byzantine text shows many conflations - places where two
earlier readings have been combined.
All this served to demostrate that the two other text-types, the
Western and the Alexandrian must be of earlier origin than the
Byzantine.
Late Alexandrian manuscripts, however, display a phenomenon known as
"mixture." This means they contain readings from more than one text-
type.
Usually there are some Byzantine readings included, also occasional
Western readings are found as well. There is a simple explanation for
this: Books were expensive, and they were used as long as possible.
The users were always writing notes, commentaries and corrections in
the margin. It was not unusual for a later copyist to assume these
marginal remarks belonged to the text - or might belong to it - and
insert them into the copy he was writing. And when the manuscript was
re-copied, the mixture would follow to the next copy and so forth.
This does not exactly make the task of Textual Criticism any easier.
The Textus Receptus
Now, how does all this apply to the Textus Receptus (hereafter 'TR')?
The TR can be studied as any Greek manuscript and evaluated using the
same methods. Doing so has revelaed interesting facts about its origin
and contents. The TR belongs to the Byzantine text-type. It was the
first published Greek text of the NT. But at the same time, it is
_not_ a single edition, but actually a text-type of its own,
consisting of hundreds of very similar, but not identical editions.
John Froben of Basle, had heard of Cardinal Ximenes' attempt to
publish a Greek text of the NT. It was actually printed in 1514 - but
not published until 1520, thus leaving time to get a competing edition
to the market - if an enterprising printer acted quickly. And this is
exactly what Froben did.
He contacted Desiderius Erasmus, the foremost scholar of his era, and
proposed Erasmus should compile a full Greek text of the NT. This was
in April 17, 1515. Work started in the fall of that year, and the work
was printed hurriedly in February of 1516. It is very easy to guess
what such haste meant to accuracy. Moreover, Erasmus was known to hate
the task of proofing and correcting his own work. Soon enough the
first printing was sold out and by 1519 a new edition was required.
There were three others to come, and improvements and corrections were
made to each.
Not all of the changes to his new editions were improvements, however.
In his 1522 edition Erasmus was forced to add the most unfortunate
addition of them all: the Comma Johanneum. This spurious addition
speaks of the "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were
taken from a recently-written Codex 61, and have been infesting almost
every TR edition ever since. They appear only in a few very late Greek
manuscripts.
After Erasmus, others followed, and none too accurately. Different
editions of the TR typically vary between 100 and 200 places, though
it must be admitted most of these variants are orthographic. It wasn't
until 1550 that the next important edition of the TR was published by
Robert Estienne, whose 3rd edition became one of the two standard
texts of the TR. Estienne included the variants of over a dozen
manuscripts, including Codices Bezae and Regius in the margin. This
became the standard TR edition used in the Great Britain and is in
part the one underlying the KJV translation. The matter of the KJV is
more complicated than that, though. What was used is a mixed text,
closed to Beza, with Estienne in the second place, but not clearly
affiliated with either edition.
Theodore de Beza published several editions between 1565 an 1611, and
a few of his readings have been accused of theological bias, as he was
a Protestant Reformer.
The Continental standard is the Elzevir edition. It was first
published in 1624, and was the last version to be significant to its
text. All the subsequent editions were marked more to their marginal
material, not variants in the text.
The influence of Erasmus' TR to the other TR texts cannot be
overestimated.
It is a sad fact that he had such a limited number of manuscripts to
use, and all of them were of late origin. Only one of them was a non-
Byzantine, and he used it relatively little. To make things worse, he
completely lacked the last six verses of Revelation in Greek, and so
he _back-translated_ them in to Greek from Latin. He admitted what he
had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not
found in _any_ Greek manuscripts. This included even readings which
were not correct Greek, but which were faithfully retained in
subsequent editions of the TR. A classical case is the "Book of Life",
which in all of the manuscripts is the "Tree of Life", in Rev 22:19.
This particular confusion due to misreading is possible only in Latin,
where the words for 'book' and 'tree' are 'libro' and 'ligno',
repectively. Their Greek equivalents are 'xylou' and 'biblou'.
Due to these facts, the TR has no textual authority whatsoever. While
it is true that most of its readings correspond to other readings some
90% of the time, the inclusion of clearly spurious material makes its
readings invalid whenever they differ from the Greek manuscripts.
Sources:
- Coogan and Metzger (eds): The Oxford Companion to the Bible
- Wallace: The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
There are 100s of languages.
How can you say that for a Bible that Moses started in Hebrew
that we must accept an English Bible as inspired.
Or that we must accept a Latin Bible as inspired. Or that we
must accpet a German BIble as inspired.
The truth be it that Jesus himself spoke of how the perfect innocent
ones are holy like Abel and Enoch and yet slaughtered by those
who feel they should admit sin. Jesus spoke of good being devoured
when he said you eat flesh and you drink blood, but he also knows
that the world as a whole will not learn unless they do their wicked
killing for God first and then find out they were wrong about God.
This is to explain to you that the words that are inspired are as
truth and not as anyone hears them if spoken, nor as how
anyone reads them if written. Truth cannot be locked as absolute
by the choice of words in spoken form nor in written form.
People will twist anything to how they hear it or read it.
This is why Gilgamesh is written down as saying to Noah
the same thing Peter said to Jesus... LORD YOU WILL NOT DIE.
He said this to Noah when he Gilgamesh had been king 126 years.
But Noah did die at 950 after Gilgamesh had died around 240.
And Jesus too died and Peter repented dispite he was ready to defend
by sword, yet refused to defend by word of court testimony, and Peter
was again wrong saying to John that JOHN TOO would never die.
My own experience is just like having Noah as a father. My sister says
Dad said this, and my brother says no Dad said that, and Dad denies
saying anything, and if I say what Dad said I am told I make up
stories
and fabricated it. Whether it is spoken or written, other people
whether
the speaker of word or writer of word is alive or dead will have other
people claiming the words were different.
Of what good is it that I enter the house of my father, if my mom says
it means I'll become a mechanic like him, and my sister says it means
Dad doesnt like me coming over to the house, and my brother says it
means go get your own house. The point is that you have empty value
to your lives while God looks at you because you insist it is his word
but you all claim the words all say something different. You worship
more the fact that you claim the Bible is God's word more than you
worship God by knowing him as the word attemmpts to teach you
what he is and what he is like. This is why Jesus said he was the Word
and a greater word than the Bible, he was showing you how to be.
You are required to save others as he saves you.
But you don't save them with damn lies. Know the truth because
you people do not, and you people are not free.
ELIJAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:40:37 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:07:32 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
<...@apexmail.com
Thanks for sharing. We've been taught that the KJV translation of the
Bible in 1611 was the greatest miracle of it's kind. All the scholars
were placed in separate chambers without communication between each
other. When they were finished with their work, they compared each
other's translations which all exactly matched. There were no disputes
recorded about its translation. Later, English spelling was
standardized. Thus, we have the present Bible today as ordained by
God. As we read from the Bible, God does not condone sin. If the Bible
contained any kind of untruth, God would be a liar as this is supposed
to be his Word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:29:22 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:40:37 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
Possibly. But your criteria is off. You go by what,
"you are taught" by a denomination. That certainly
isn't the criteria found even in the KJV, which says
to examine all doctrines, to see whether or not
they hold water. So accepting a teaching, because
some denomination says it, is the wrong approach.
Actually, that's not true and you're being taught incorrectly.
The scholars were divided into groups, with each group
examining the others work in turns.
Actually, they chose an English that was no longer used.
Elizabethan English. This is a good thing though, as it
was better able to translate some of the inflections that
are inherent in the original language.
I agree. But here, you are dishonestly switching gears.
This discussion is about the KJV, not "the Bible".
I.e., it is about the KJV specifically and how good
the translation work was and the texts it was based
off of.
Personally, I think it's one of the best translations ever,
if not the best and that it was based off of a proper
set of texts.
--
Pastor Dave
"The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say
you cannot do." - Chinese proverb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:37:30 +1000, "Von Rotchild" <...@illuminati.org
"Just Visiting" <...@4ax.com...
....zzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Wait a second.
Did God placed scholars in separate chambers? NO
Did God personally appointed them? NO
Why are you lieing that KJV (which you call "present") is ordained by God?
You just made it up, stupid.
Now come with the theory that Mickey Mouse is a God's prophet for the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:21:03 -0500, "Misty-a" <...@charter.net
"Von Rotchild" <...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
The King James Version is just that.
It is only a version and it comes with it's own tranlation errores
Just as all Bible versions contain.
That is why we can not rely on only one Version as law.
we need 2 and even more when searching for the truths.
M,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:31:11 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:37:30 +1000, "Von Rotchild"
<...@illuminati.org
That's not really a valid argument, since one could
also then say...
"Did God go into the place and preach to the Gentiles? No!"
Well of course it was Paul who actually did the physical part
of walking in there and it was his lips moving, but God did
ordain it. So your point is not valid.
--
Pastor Dave
"Personally I cannot understand it, yet I continually
encounter this phenomenon not only in others but
in myself. How is it that people can read the Bible
for years, go to a Bible school, attend a Bible church,
listen to the best Bible expositors, attend a weekly
Bible study, and then behave as if they hadn't learned
anything at all? Yet it happens". - Ray C. Steadman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:01:40 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze <...@apexmail.com
On Apr 19, 11:40 pm, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.netwrote:
I've heard that legend before, but it was about the LXX (Septuagint)
and not the KJV...
In my previous post I discussed the problem of the Textus Receptus
having Book of Life instead of Tree of Life in Revelation. Let me
repeat what I said:
To make things worse, he [Erasmus] completely lacked the last six
verses of Revelation in Greek, and so he _back-translated_ them in to
Greek from Latin. He admitted what he had done, but the result was a
Greek text containing readings not found in _any_ Greek manuscripts.
This included even readings which were not correct Greek, but which
were faithfully retained in subsequent editions of the Textus
Receptus. A classical case is the "Book of Life", which in all of the
manuscripts is the "Tree of Life", in Rev 22:19. This particular
confusion due to misreading is possible only in Latin, where the words
for 'book' and 'tree' are 'libro' and 'ligno', repectively. Their
Greek equivalents are 'xylou' and 'biblou'.
Only the Bible translations based on the Textus Receptus, of which KJV
is one, have this mistake. We know what its origin is, as demonstrated
above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:40:39 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
What translation would I suggest?
All of them.
Because I see every book in the world as God's word,
And I see every book in the world as the word of the Devil.
For in every book you can see the author's intent,
is it for good (for God) or is it malice, or is it to advance
the freedoms of pleasure through corruptions.
I do not advocate the total freedom of any peasure for
it might be the pleasure to kill. Nor do I advocate the
chains to stop corruption but to preach love of good,
and my sword to kill is my tongue not to rally people
up physically to do things against evil, but to stir people
up to take this stand inside themselves to be what is good,
bash the evil within oneself, and walk away and shun
others you advocate the corruptions. But even books
that are bad, and you see no good in them will prove to
you how the bad will bring only bad things to the lives of
those who read such books, and thus that too is a truth,
the truth of bad actions bring bad results. Satan lives
because God allows the bad to prove God right about the
things that are bad. The world is an example of good
causing good anf bad causing bad. And this word of
God is sen in every book and every movie and every
internet post you see or read.
On Oprah aired 1991 June 18 when my prediction of
Saddam Husseins threat was aired, I too was aired stating
this stand that our swrod of activism is not our hands but
our tongue. We need not travel the world to interfere with
the wicked to stop them from aborting their babies.
They bring upon themselves their own fate, and those
gathered for God can keep their own house and church
clean, not attempt to rule the world of the wicked. God's
kingdom rules the world not by conversion but by surviving
armageddon and being the only world left alive.
Every book has God's truth. Even a book on golfing will
tell you God's truth of how his physical laws will take the
ball where God will put it. But just because you have
the power to do something doesnt mean it is what God wants.
Because angels themselves could father sons before the Flood,
and Enoch spoke against them when he confronted Kichunna
the king of Larsa. And for that king Alulim dematerialized him
in the belief that just as they could father sons and so assumed
it as God's purpose, that then too also his power of dematerializing
Enoch in front of everyone was assumed his authority by God
to kill this rebel who dared to speak against the sons of God.
And yet Enoch proved true. The angels began rule when his
son Methuselah was born; and his grandson Noah freed this Earth
of those angels because the same Flood that wiped out humans
also forced these angels off the Earth. Karma-Jehovah. Thus Enoch
was like Jesus, speak out until they kill you.
This is why even the LXX teaches us how the error developed.
If the LXX did not say the Flood was 3090 BC being 720 years
180 leap days before and after the true Flood 2370 BC; if the Mayan
texts
did not say that the world was created by Flood in 3114 BC
being 744 seasonal years of 180 leap days before and after the
true Flood 2370 BC; if the LXX did not say that the Greeks place
Marduk of the Flood in 2958 BC because year 2009 BC is year 950;
or that NeoBabylon places this as years of 360 days (2945-2009 BC)
because the Flood is 2947 BC. ALL THESE ERRORS reveal a
reconstruction not of chronology by genealogy nor a mere addition
of regnal years or lives end-to-end; but a reconstruction everyone and
all of you have failed to do, construct time by astronomy and calendar
as you ought to have. All the errors prove but one chronology and
it proves Adam 4025 BC and Flood 2370 BC and thus proves Adam
was not evolved into existence.
That is why God has taught us that we are correct, error will pave
our way, no matter how bad we get, or whether we correct and repent,
or let it run its course until death and destruction, the error will
either
lead you back to God with truth, or it will destroy you so that only
truth and those with truth remain alive. To resurrect to life on earth
all those who were wrong is a mercy and undeserved love for man.
ELIJAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT), robert shepherd <...@hotmail.com
Don't you think some writings, passed down from anciet days, have a
greater place or ought to be worthy of greater honor and attention, if
for no other reason the internal proofs, the antiquity, the "honor"
bestowed by time itself??????
Musicians listen to the tone and timbre, the sonal qualities of
instruments they test.
Humans also "listen" (so to speak) - to test the "qualities" of words
we hear (whether oral or written)
Similarly for the socalled sacred records, that are the current
possession of humankind.
It is true that the gods or god or the other world "SPEAKS" (one might
say) via almost any number of unexpected sources. Truth can be found
almost anywhere, but we sift and measure and test (or taste).
Often the ones who deliver the message are subjected to epithets,
stigma's, persecution. Many are called trouble-makers, beelzebubs,
atheists, subversives.
It is only later that people wake up and realize the error committed.
Sort of like America's RED SCARE of the early fifties, late forties.
Sometimes called the McCarthy Era.
People seem to react with fear to what is unfamiliar. But shame on
those who rush to judgment, who believe the obvious lies and slanders
of wicked people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:56:15 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:56:19 -0700 (PDT), robert shepherd
<...@hotmail.com
That depends on which writings you're talking about.
For example, there are writings of the NT that are older
and should be trashed, because they are trash. But they
are the oldest. Being older doesn't always mean more
accurate.
--
Pastor Dave
The atheists and even many "spiritual" people wish
for "Utopia". Little do they realize that this word,
coined by Thomas Moore in a novel, was really
a kind of joke. The word comes from the Greek,
"ou-topos" and is a Greek pun and literally means,
"no place" and the thrust of the novel, is that
what it all boils down to, as it turns out, is that,
"no place is a good place". This is why he used
this word! :)
The atheists and even many "spiritual" people wish
for "Utopia". Little do they realize that this word,
coined by Thomas Moore in a novel, was really
a kind of joke. The word comes from the Greek,
"ou-topos" and is a Greek pun and literally means,
"no place" and the thrust of the novel, is that
what it all boils down to, as it turns out, is that,
"no place is a good place". This is why he used
this word! :)
And yet, of course, the atheists in their ignorance
still dream of it and so do the "spiritual" folks and
even Christians today, who have taken on the new
(as of the early 1800's) self pleasing and aggrandizing
new belief called, "Dispensationalism".
And so, before the Christians laugh at the atheists,
remember that if you are one of those Christians,
then you also look for the same place. You see,
when you believe that one day Christ will leave Heaven
(think about that... LEAVE HEAVEN... you also look for
this place on Earth, that will simply never exist and so,
YOU ALSO look for this same "Utopia"! (:
Heaven is not a place that God and His Christ are going
to leave, to come and live on a planet. How do we know
that for sure? Easy! :)
God says in His word that He does not dwell in buildings
(Acts 7:48-50) and yet, you expect Him to live on a
physical plane, even though He is outside of it and is
a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth,
as the Scriptures say (John 4:24).
God does not come to live within His creation, but rather,
is above it! And so, when you acknowledge that He is
above His creation (and Dispensationalists surely do indeed
acknowledge that) and then claim that He will come here
with His Son to live, which means they will indeed have to
be physical, human beings at that point, then you have
indeed belittled God and denied His word and have tried
to make Him as small as you are, since His doing this
would make Him subject to this world's physical laws
if He is going to be physical,which is the exact claim
of Dispensationalism and therefore, also to linear time,
which would then have God aging!
Think about this! Think hard about this! Think really hard
and you will find that all you can do when shown this, is to
immediately try to make things upon the fly to try to get
around this and that should tell you something, amen?
Your only other option is to personally attack me and
pretend that means you have defended your belief.
Either way, it's really very sad!
And so, shame on anyone who believes that sort of thing!!!
Shame! Shame!! Shame!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
What is claimed as older can also be a lie.
The tower of Babel (2240 BC)
counting 13 decades as 10x 13 year Mars
in 128 years (130 calendar years)
is older than the Great Pyramid (2170 BC)
counting and comparing every 100 years of
360 days versus 365 days and 25 leap days.
But we all know people of the Bible are claiming
the pyramid as 2770 BC while others claimed it
in 3258 BC as 300 years before the Flood 2958 BC
ignoring that 3258 BC was just another calculation
for a different false Flood year. We now have
sci-fi atheists who place it at 10,000 BC.
So whose antiquity do we claim as being older!
Its a prestige and fame game.
A classic example of texts out of sequence is
Gilgamesh and Xisuthros, the Xisuthros being
claimed as older than Gilgamesh texts. Well
perhaps the Gilgamesh copies are not as old
as the Xisuthros copies, the by storyline context
alone Gilgamesh is older merely because with
Xisuthros he is dead Noah gone to heaven in 40 days,
while the Gilgamesh storyline comes in two versions,
one where Noah is alone (because he is alive and
his wife is dead), and the other claiming that Gilgamesh
had lived so many centuries after Noah that it was
in the underworld that he had met Noah along beside
his dead wife (both being dead). Yet the story defies
the fact even half-gods cannot be resurrected without
a sacrifice of someone else to take their place.
Xisuthros is indeed older in that he goes to heaven
during the 40 days of Flood. But the text origin is from
a seance' in Babel 350 years later who speaks to
Xisuthros during the 40 days after Noah died.
Gilgamesh is afraid of death because of the panic of
the whole world when short longevity hit Peleg Mesanipada.
Long chronologies will claim this is after death was already
known to Noah, and to Shem, and Arpaxad, and Shelah.
But short chronology says Peleg died before all of them,
yes even 191 years before his own fathe Eber. AND this
death was in year 340 ten years before Noah died.
In this case Gilgamesh is seeking a real living Noah
before Noah did die and some spirit Xisuthros shows up
in seance'. So the debate of which text comes first is based
three storylines and references. Is it reference to this
spirit king (last king before the Flood who goes to heaven
during the 40 day rain) which then precedes both the
actual death of Noah and the Gilgamesh at death of Peleg
(no matter whose death you argue came first Noah or Peleg).
Or if reference to Xisuthros at Noah's death in year 350,
then does that come before or after Gilgamesh with Peleg.
Short chronology year 340 but long chronologies as
year 640 or 740 or 768 long after Noah.
Actual dates are:
Peleg is honored by the creation of calendar in Memphis.
He is honored as Anubis the rising Dog constellation and
thus Dog Star Sothis who sets as a dog but rises as a man
(take a look at its shape, it needs no over ellaborated false
picture to see this shape of stars) for 70 days it is dead and absent.
2030 BC May 8 to July 17
Thus Gilgamesh went to Noah, first to Ararat where his daughter
of his vine said he had left across the sea, and then to the place
he built ships (the isle of Kittim /Cyprus). If he was buried in
Dilman
of Persia it meant they shipped his body. His rule of 126 years
thus ends in 2030 BC.
Gilgamesh says to Noah how can you know a Flood is coming
by all the signs and not understand and know these signs of
why we are aging so rapidly. His answer is quit falling asleep and
stay awake and you will then know. Gilgamesh then says but you
will not die. But as apostle John did die after the apostles,
so too Noah did die after Gilgamesh; because John said
that the words to Peter are not this man will see the kingdom
of God and so never die, no John who heard Peter quote Jesus
then told Peter he intepreted Jesus wrong. Jesus was not predicting
John living forever, but rather was saying if i wanted John to live
forever, then Peter what business is that of yours. If you love me
Peter then preach, do not worry about who is gonna be the
next dangerous Judas following you and me up the beach.
So then Noah died and so was no longer the world's living christ
to speak or represent God. Jesus wants us to see that the visit of
Xisuthros was 40 days in seance proven by Jesus doing the
same thing, staying for 40 days.
40 days of Xisuthros =
2021 BC Julian Dec 24 to 2020 BC Feb 2 (day KiahTse /JiaZi)
This christmas Eve of Noah's death and rise as false spirit on
Dec 25 is why the Maya of 1314 BC shifted Thoth 1 (Phoph 1)
to Dec 25 for that year as Pop 1 and created Pop 0 for Dec 24.
The original Thoth 1 falls on Jan 11 (having been Jan 13 in 2029 BC
in the first year of 365-day calendar due to July 12 new moon
being Epagum 1 and July 17 being the Phamenoth 1 new year
of 2030 BC).
Thus the issue of arguing which is antiquity does not erase the
lies people beleive all the way back to whether that tree in the
garden
could kill or not, and instantly, or gradually, or who decides that.
ELIJAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:40:04 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
I repeat
1 Kings 6:1 says it is 480 years from exodus to the temple
including 40 years in Sinai and 40 years of king David.
So how does the 400 remaining (and even less if you subtract
conquest of Canaan, and king Saul), how does it hold
the 450 years of judges that KJV Acts 13:20 says
is 450 years of judges while almost all other versions
100s of them correctly say it was about 450 up until the judges.
You ignore what you are taught because you wish to be
saved in a simple way.... believing holding a KJV bible
will save you. The day will come where you will die.
You will die soon violently because it is that hour where
those who die will be billions in the same year. And
if by chance someone wants you back to life on earth,
and God hears that voice and brings you back alive,
you will see the sahame that you thought you would be saved
by going to heaven when you died, or the shame that you
again are on first base of this ball game because your stupid
idea of 3rd base and a home run was in the stadium bathroom.
Wake up people, youre about to die because of your
lack of knowing God as true science.
My God Jehovah is alive and porves himself, and when I hope
to predict and get it right it proves I know him, and when I
hope to predict and get it wrong it porves that is something
that I dont know about him and thought I did or wished I did.
But like Elijah said you call your God (Baal which means Lord)
and your God is on the toilet taking a crap and never answers you.
That is why Elijah will show you the fire of God Jehovah.
ELIJAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:46:01 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
repeat
1 Kings 6:1 says it is 480 years from exodus to the temple
including 40 years in Sinai and 40 years of king David.
So how does the 400 remaining (and even less if you subtract
conquest of Canaan, and king Saul), how does it hold
the 450 years of judges that KJV Acts 13:20 says
is 450 years of judges while almost all other versions
100s of them correctly say it was about 450 up until the judges.
You ignore what you are taught because you wish to be
saved in a simple way.... believing holding a KJV bible
will save you. The day will come where you will die.
You will die soon violently because it is that hour where
those who die will be billions in the same year. And
if by chance someone wants you back to life on earth,
and God hears that voice and brings you back alive,
you will see the shame that you thought you would be saved
by going to heaven when you died, or the shame that you
again are on first base of this ball game because your stupid
idea of 3rd base and a home run was in the stadium bathroom.
Wake up people, youre about to die because of your
lack of knowing God as true science.
My God Jehovah is alive and proves himself, and when I hope
to predict and get it right it proves I know him, and when I
hope to predict and get it wrong it proves that is something
that I dont know about him and thought I did or wished I did.
But like Elijah said you call your God (Baal which means Lord)
and your God is on the toilet taking a crap and never answers you.
That is why Elijah will show you the fire of God Jehovah.
ELIJAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah <...@wi.rr.com
Such fools to think the Bible was written in 1611 AD.
Yes I guess that's some miracle if all the Bibles before 1611
were not of God, and now God had to pull out the real Bible of 1611
for everyone in his greatest miracle.
And then hmmm to ignore that all these scholars
(if in separate rooms are all using the same Latin Bible,
not Hebrew and not Greek).
So now that the KJV is written in British should we put
all our scholars in separate rooms to translate into
american english and call it the miracle of the day,
and we can claim it's the Bible of 2009 that is inspired
of God not the 1611 KJV.
Fools, you do not even know the beginning of knowing
what damn by God means because you think there
is no fear of God until you die and must fear this Hell
you teach. Indeed, God is truly trying to burn away error that
you wish to hang onto, and burn it away forever, but he
certainly isnt going to change you by a the hell torture
that youre teaching. I assure you I can see that to hell torture
you forever would never force you to understand the real
true Bible that existed before the 1611 KJV.
Ciao babe, or as God would say Asta la vista baby.
if Terminated by God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:56:47 GMT, "Michael Christ" <...@Father.com
"Elijahovah" <...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Now that you have had your say.
What translation do you suggest?
Michael Christ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:39:19 -0400, Just Visiting <...@sbcglobal.net
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT), Elijahovah
<...@wi.rr.com
Translated in 1611.
If God has to use the devil to get his work done, that's okay. It's
too bad the translation couldn't have happened in the early church but
God has to deal with the will of man unfortunately.
The history of the vernacular Bible of the English race resolves
itself into two distinctly marked periods - the one being that of
Manuscript Bibles, which were direct translations from the Latin
Vulgate, the other that of Printed Bibles, which were, more or less
completely, translations from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old
and New Testaments.
You really have a lousy attitude. Like I told the other guy: God is
not the author of confusion, lies or errors for that matter. The KJV
Bible is written the way God has ordained it to be. It is finalized.
If it has just ONE untruth in it, then God is a liar if this is
supposed to be his Word but God is NOT a liar and the KJV Bible does
NOT contradict itself or contain errors. It is a sacred, holy book
that JEHOVAH God has ordained in its current state and it is NOT a
stupid bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:28:48 +1000, "Von Rotchild" <...@illuminati.org
"Just Visiting" <...@4ax.com...
From the Catholic Bible already translated from other languages.
Negating God's miracles of the Bible noted.
Theory that England is the whole world noted.
Stupidity that "translation to English is the God's greatest miracle"
noted.
Egocentric LIE that everyone in the world read and speak English also noted.
I have great compassion for extremelly stupid people trying to be teachers
or priests.
They are also God's creatures, but they should IMHO shut-up instead making
fools of themselves in public.
I see, you are spreading freemason's lies that God is actually Lucifer.
Clasic English falsificate.
So you are claiming that King James was a prophet or personally appointed by
the God?
Do you have any proof? I see, you just made it up...
Lunatic theory and serious delusion.
Seek appropriate medical help please instead posting on Internet.
It is falsificate nothing to do with REAL GOD. Sorry.
Sorry, but the true is that Arnold Scwarzeneger said " Asta la vista baby".
So, Arnold is your God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:35:21 -0400, Pastor Dave <...@_gmail.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:39:19 -0400, Just Visiting
<...@sbcglobal.net
So then, you admit that you are saying that all Bibles
before the KJV were the Devil's work.
Well, since the Devil would certainly put some untruth
into the Bible, that means that folks up until the KJV,
were mislead and not really saved. How could they be?
Of course, this means that even the Scriptures that
the early church translated for churches in other areas,
were the Devil's work and so, the whole church grew
based on Satan's desire and his doctrine.
So where does that leave the translators of the KJV,
since they weren't really believers in God's word
and would have actually translated off of copies,
not originals, which according to your doctrine,
would mean that they translated the KJV from
the texts that Satan provided and by your own
admission, made sure they were accurate translations
of THE TEXTS THAT THEY TRANSLATED FROM.
You see, when you believe a ridiculous doctrine,
it always ends up contradicting itself and you
will always end up looking like an ass. :)
--
Pastor Dave
I do whatever the little voices tell me to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:25:08 GMT, "wax" <...@worldnet.att.net
"Just Visiting" <...@sbcglobal.net
Here are the English Translations which appeared before 1611:
The first complete translation of the Bible into English was made in 1535
c.e. It is known as the Coverdale Bible. It was primarily a translation of
German and Latin versions, but it also used Tyndale's translation of the
Greek New Testament and his translation from the Hebrew of the Pentateuch.
The Thomas Matthew Bible, 1537. When Tyndale died, he gave his unfinished
translation to John Rogers and this work was published the Thomas Matthew
Bible.
The Great Bible was completed in 1539. It was primarily a revision of
Tyndale. Its name came from its large size. Cromwell ordered that the
Great Bible be set up in churches and positioned so it could be read by
parishioners.
The Travener Bible was also completed in 1539. The Old Testament portion
followed Tyndale almost unchanged, but the New Testament contained numerous
improvements over Tyndale. It has the distinction of being the first
complete Bible printed in England.
The Geneva Bible published in 1560. The Old Testament had many revisions of
Tyndale, but the New Testament was still Tyndale. This popular Bible became
the Bible used by Oliver Cromwell, the Pilgrims Fathers who came over on the
Mayflower, Shakespeare, and King James himself.
The Bishop's Bible published in 1568. Basically a revision of the Great
Bible, intended to replace both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible.
The King James Bible 1611. Some scholars claim that as much as eighty
percent of the KJV is based upon Tyndale's translation.
--Wax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:41:01 -0400, Ordained <...@tampabay.rr.com
*You forgot the literal translation done in 1550. It was the first to
use numbers
thereby creating verses..........
*
<blockquote
cite...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net"
type="cite" <pre wrap="" </pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap=""
</pre <blockquote type="cite" <pre wrap="" </pre </blockquote <pre wrap="" </pre </blockquote <pre wrap=""Here are the English Translations which appeared before 1611:
The first complete translation of the Bible into English was made in 1535
c.e. It is known as the Coverdale Bible. It was primarily a translation of
German and Latin versions, but it also used Tyndale's translation of the
Greek New Testament and his translation from the Hebrew of the Pentateuch.
The Thomas Matthew Bible, 1537. When Tyndale died, he gave his unfinished
translation to John Rogers and this work was published the Thomas Matthew
Bible.
The Great Bible was completed in 1539. It was primarily a revision of
Tyndale. Its name came from its large size. Cromwell ordered that the
Great Bible be set up in churches and positioned so it could be read by
parishioners.
The Travener Bible was also completed in 1539. The Old Testament portion
followed Tyndale almost unchanged, but the New Testament contained numerous
improvements over Tyndale. It has the distinction of being the first
complete Bible printed in England.
The Geneva Bible published in 1560. The Old Testament had many revisions of
Tyndale, but the New Testament was still Tyndale. This popular Bible became
the Bible used by Oliver Cromwell, the Pilgrims Fathers who came over on the
Mayflower, Shakespeare, and King James himself.
The Bishop's Bible published in 1568. Basically a revision of the Great
Bible, intended to replace both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible.
The King James Bible 1611. Some scholars claim that as much as eighty
percent of the KJV is based upon Tyndale's translation.
--Wax
</pre</blockquote</body</html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|