[Jordan]

Can someone show/tell me why these manuscripts are wrong? I know they remove verses and stuff, but I'm just searching for some info here.

[bibleprotector]

The problem is that they do not tend to represent a single text, because of the high amount of variations in each individual copy (at least, this is true for the Sinai and Vatican Codices, which are the two main represenatives of this family).

Dr Thomas Holland wrote, in Crowned with Glory:

Sir Alfred Chester Beatty discovered several papyrus manuscripts known as P45, P46, and P47. They date to the second and third centuries, and demonstrate a mixed text revealing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings. P46, however, has recently been argued by some to date to the last half of the first century, around 85 AD. The same may be said of the findings of M. Martin Bodmer concerning P66, P72, and P75. These manuscripts traditionally date around the third century. P66, however, has been redated by some to the first half of the second century. If the redating of all these texts holds true it lends support to the thought that most textual changes occurred before 200 AD. It also could suggest that the Alexandrian text-type was in an evolutionary stage only to be fully developed by the fourth century. In either case, we see that the earliest manuscripts reveal a mixed text containing both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings.
No one would demand that each and every scholar, theologian, textual critic, and church historian agree on everything as it relates to Bible doctrine. But, when we find early heresies mixed with present day false teachings, it should cause us some concern. The concern should intensify when we discover that many who have influenced Biblical transmission held such heresies. At the very least, their influence should be called into question. After all, do we really want to trust the safe keeping of Holy Scripture with those who have proven themselves to be corrupt in regard to Biblical doctrine?

[Jordan]

What about Origen, who was he?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Jordan

What about Origen, who was he?

Origen was essentially nothing more than a scribe assigned by the Emperor Constantine to produce a number of Bibles for the different churches after Constantine allegedly converted to "Christianity". Origen was more of a philosopher than theologian, and in the Scriptural realm codified Roman Catholicism as a systematized belief. That particular belief can be found in the manuscripts he edited, although as I said, Vaticanus was itself edited so many times as to be almost unreadable over the centuries.

Origen was an extreme ascetic(separatist) who had himself castrated after reading what Christ said about if your eye offends thee, pluck it out.

One thing you find evident in the Alexandrian manuscripts that survive today: They are written on very expensively tanned animal hides(vellum). It's apparent then that these manuscripts were abandoned very early as a textual foundation, which is why there are only 45 manuscripts in existence while the Majority text was copied onto papyrus, very cheap and widely used but not so durable. Though alleged to be "late" the Majority text is just that, the majority with over 5000 manuscripts extant. My question for the Alexandrian proponents is why would there not be over 5000 "late" copies of the Alexandrian text in evidence, if it were the "correct" text, in competition to the "incorrect" Majority text and also copied on cheap but not-so-durable papyrus?

To anyone with any logic running their thought processes, this is clear evidence the Alexandrian text was a REJECTED text, while the corrupted Catholic Vulgate, copied from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, was hidden away in Catholic Churches, available only in Latin to people who did not speak Latin.

It's also my firm belief that anyone who accepts any "Bible" today translated from this corrupt text or defends it is saying, simply, that the Catholic Church and it's corrupted doctrines is the only correct and true church.

Grace and peace

Tony

[CKG]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Origen was essentially nothing more than a scribe assigned by the Emperor Constantine to produce a number of Bibles for the different churches after Constantine allegedly converted to "Christianity".
Tony

I thought Eusebius was assigned the task.

Origen (A.D. 184-254). Constantine didn't became emperor of Rome until 312 A.D

[Tmonk]

Before Origen can be fully blamed I have a few questions. These are practical, non-theological questions.

1. The Latin was finished by 400 AD, how long did it take before it was the primary Bible used? The Latin was made because it was the popular language of the late 300's, Greek was falling out of favor with the common people. The Latin was maintained forcibly by the RC. But my biggest question is about the initial accepting of it. How long did it take after Jerome finished it and did it have an effect on the use of the Greek in the churches in the 400's ?

2. As far as Alexandria goes, how did the rise of Islam effect those churches? Did it cause the Alexandrian texts to be abandoned due to conversion?

3. What hand did the church fathers in Alexandrian mss other than Origen have? What about Clement for instance? Or Eusebius? Or even Tertullian (Carthage)?

4. Did the various Reformation translators even have an Alexandrian mss ? When was the first discovered?

[Tmonk]

Basically asking about the political and religious climate of the region during the 2-7th centuries.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by CKG

I thought Eusebius was assigned the task.

Origen (A.D. 184-254). Constantine didn't became emperor of Rome until 312 A.D

I stand corrected, I may have my heretics mixed up.

Grace and peace

Tony

[CKG]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I stand corrected, I may have my heretics mixed up.

Grace and peace

Tony

I have only a very basic knowledge of manuscript history. A few years back I wrote a paper as an introduction to the KJV issue and for some reason Origen and Eusebius are still etched in my memory.

FOR JORDAN

If you're really and sincerely interested in the KJV then do some research. Here are a couple of sites for starters -

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm


http://www.christianmissionconnectio...dy_topics.html
Look under “Why We Use the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Scriptures” and you will find several PDF files concerning the KJV.

[George]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Origen was essentially nothing more than a scribe assigned by the Emperor Constantine to produce a number of Bibles for the different churches after Constantine allegedly converted to "Christianity". Origen was more of a philosopher than theologian, and in the Scriptural realm codified Roman Catholicism as a systematized belief. That particular belief can be found in the manuscripts he edited, although as I said, Vaticanus was itself edited so many times as to be almost unreadable over the centuries.

Origen was an extreme ascetic(separatist) who had himself castrated after reading what Christ said about if your eye offends thee, pluck it out.

One thing you find evident in the Alexandrian manuscripts that survive today: They are written on very expensively tanned animal hides(vellum). It's apparent then that these manuscripts were abandoned very early as a textual foundation, which is why there are only 45 manuscripts in existence while the Majority text was copied onto papyrus, very cheap and widely used but not so durable. Though alleged to be "late" the Majority text is just that, the majority with over 5000 manuscripts extant. My question for the Alexandrian proponents is why would there not be over 5000 "late" copies of the Alexandrian text in evidence, if it were the "correct" text, in competition to the "incorrect" Majority text and also copied on cheap but not-so-durable papyrus?

To anyone with any logic running their thought processes, this is clear evidence the Alexandrian text was a REJECTED text, while the corrupted Catholic Vulgate, copied from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, was hidden away in Catholic Churches, available only in Latin to people who did not speak Latin.

It's also my firm belief that anyone who accepts any "Bible" today translated from this corrupt text or defends it is saying, simply, that the Catholic Church and it's corrupted doctrines is the only correct and true church.

Grace and peace

Tony

Aloha brother Tony,

Before you waste very much time with "Jordan", you should review his previous "Threads: & "Posts" to see "WHERE he is coming from" and to get "a handle" on WHAT kind of person he is. WATCH OUT for the "GOTCHA" - this young man doesn't have an honest or sincere BONE in his entire body! {Check out his website - It's all about JORDAN!}

Brother, you "can bet your bottom dollar" that Jordan already knows about Origen, and is just going to "play along" or "string you along" (and others) until he sees the right moment to "pounce" and display his cunning craftiness for all to see (once again).

The following are "Jordan's" two previous Threads. {Please Consider: "THIS" from an 18 year old BOY! (at the time)}:

Jordan's Thread #1. <> 05-07-2008 09:52 PM <> Help Me <> http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...91&postcount=1

"I am looking to order a KJV Bible but am having trouble finding one for a reasonable price on the internet. I came across a couple that I will link you too.

There's this one: http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...1&item_code=WW
This one: https://shop.avpublications.com/prod...271eb08fc34082

I'm just not sure which one is going to be the best value for me, please give me some insight if you can."

In Christ,

Jordan

Please read through the Thread carefully (Too long to reproduce here) and see how this young man craftily asks "QUESTIONS" - to which he ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWERS TO!


One day AFTER what "appears" to be a "SINCERE" plea for "HELP" (Jordan's Thread #1. <> "Help Me" ) - "Jordan" Posted the following Thread:

Jordan's Thread #2<> 05-08-2008 10:34 PM <> Some People Should Realize... <> http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...50&postcount=1

"That the KJV isn't the only "true" translation. Words have changed in meaning since it was published (1600's) and the word's have been replaced with something that is an alternative that means THE SAME THING. I think it's good that we have different versions of the Bible, like the NASB, NKJV, AMP, etc."

Jordan's Post #4 <> 05-09-2008 01:46 AM <> Some People Should Realize...

"How do you know the original translators didn't make mistakes? You don't do you?"

Jordan's Post #6 <> 05-09-2008 03:31 AM <> Some People Should Realize...

"No I'm not saying that but I'm saying that they weren't the smartest people ever in the universe or anything. I'm just saying it's all God's inspired Word, why can't we all be nice?"

Jordan's Post #11 <> 05-09-2008 12:15 PM <> Some People Should Realize...

"You guys are just too closed minded..."

Jordan's Post #12 <> 05-09-2008 01:07 PM <> Some People Should Realize...

"What about what S. Augustine says in the preface of the 1611 edition of the Bible?"

Jordan's Post #14 <> 05-09-2008 04:42 PM <> Some People Should Realize...

"So then we shouldn't read it. Jesus didn't speak English so we should read it in the original Hebrew and Greek texts."

AFTER several people made various comments, Jordan posted Posts #21, #24, #26, #28, and #29 - (all very short and of no consequence). He then came out and revealed his "true colors" with his Post #31 (Notice the time lapse between his Post #29 and His Post #31. What do you suppose that our "young lad" was doing for that month? Hmmm?):

Jordan's Post #31 <> 06-08-2008, 06:33 PM <> Some People Should Realize...

"Can someone explain these errors in the KJV translation?"

"Then how do they explain all these errors in the KJV?"

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Ezekiel 39:2 in the KJV indicates that one sixth of the invaders will be allowed to survive, but in the original Hebrew there is no mention of anybody whatsoever surviving. I have no idea how the KJV translators came up with one sixth surviving.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

This young man is one of the most deceptive young persons I have ever dealt with. I have met very few people of his age with so much "guile". If you read through his two previous Threads you can see how he "played" many of us, who at the beginning tried to truly "help" him. (However it didn't take some of us very long before we discovered "WHERE he was coming from")

Jordan's last Post was on 06-08-2008. After being thoroughly repudiated and rebuked (see Posts), he hadn't posted anything for approximately 10 months, until his newest "foray" (QUESTIONS - ALWAYS LOADED QUESTIONS! Read his clever "questions" carefully!) onto the Forum {Jordan's Thread: "Alexandrian Texts"}.

Unless this young man has repented and turned from his deceitful ways (which he hasn't publicly made known here), then he is just "baiting" whoever he can into another fruitless and unproductive debate.

Look at his "QUESTION":

"Can someone show/tell me why these manuscripts are wrong? I know they remove verses and stuff, but I'm just searching for some info here."

IF on the face of his "question" - "Jordan" CANNOT SEE that REMOVING God's WORDS from the Scriptures is WRONG, who amongst us here on the Forum are going to convince him otherwise? Hmmm? This kind of "discernment" is taught by the Holy Spirit - NOT men; and as long as this young man is determined to "find errors" in the Holy Bible, he will never understand WHY REMOVING God's WORDS from the HOLY Scriptures is not only "WRONG", but it is EVIL!

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. {This applies to BOYS & YOUNG MEN ALSO!}