[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Brother Tim, it is because he wanted to have an "expert" answer my questions. While he couldn't answer my questions, he is intrigued....and wants his faith in the NIV reinforced.

Hi .. Just a tweak here .. I tend to doubt that he has "faith in the NIV" .. other than as an acceptable version .. more like "faith in the generic unspecific Bible versions".

Incidentally, while Debau's warning is very sensible, I would not want to consider it as impossible that even a hired gun of the modern version industrial complex could not some day hear the simple truth of the purity of God's word .. I think of Frank Logsdon who worked on the NASV and then realized that he had made a terrible error and repented of those mistaken efforts. However Debau's scripture verse sharing and suggestion make a lot of sense in this situation, any movement towards truth by a professional Bible corrector comes to calloused hearts with very great difficulty, as they have a whole system of peer and professional acceptance and reinforcement and reward that precludes the possibility that God's word is truly 100% pure and perfect and able to be read by the ploughman.

Shalom,
Steven

[Brother Tim]

You have a good point about Frank Logsdon. The difference however was that it was someone already known and respected by him that turned him to the truth. In Paladin's case, he is facing not only the pride of scholarship, but the pride of age. It will be the grace of God speaking through the lips of truth that has the only hope of redemption for this man. I will bite my tongue (fingers) to keep from saying what I think of his "theology" teacher.

[Debau]

Originally Posted by Paladin54

A week from tomorrow, I will be meeting with Dr. Strauss, one of the translators of the TNIV and author of the new book, "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions"..

Hi Paladin,

I think yesterday or today was the big day, and eagerly wait your report from your meeting in the land with the man "of a great stature".

"for we are well able to overcome it" Num 13:32, 30

Hope you were able "stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong" !!!! I Cor 16:13

I shoulda given you these before your meeting...

[Paladin54]

Yes, it was. i will be typing up my notes and reconstructing some of the more "important" things we "discussed", full of commentary, of course. Please be patient with me, it will be up today.

[Paladin54]

I was about a 1/5 through typing up my notes and I realized that it would profit very little to repost them. Most of the things he said were so ordinary and, if he would have let me, would have been easy for me to defeat. However, they talked so much that I believe I spoke at all only 5 or 6 times. He would, for lack of a better word, monologue for a while, which would trigger several questions/objections in my head, and I would get the chance to answer only one of those, and thus, another monologue would start. I really do feel that this is a good use of my time, partly from his comments such as

-"I'm thrilled either way you come out of this, and I'll be more than happy to meet with you again until it stops being productive. Think of this as the beginning on a great journey of knowledge. I'm surprised that you are so dedicated to this and have much more knowledge of texts than I did when I was 17."

Apparently, I didn't turn him off as "yet another young, blind, 'zealot'".

Some of his thoughts:
-"(KJB) Greatest translation of all time, it stood he test of time, the dominant version" (he compared it to a really famous Mac computer from '87 or some year like that, called it "The greatest computer ever made,, but no one ever uses it anymore because it is archaic, they told me I would never need more than its 1 kilobyte of info, but we use several kilobytes for one program of thousands."
-"manuscripts outdated"
-"obvious errors in the text"
-"I know of no scholars who are KJVO Advocates, it is a layman thinking."

-"The Text Receptus is not THE Byzantine Text, but it is A Byzantine text of several"

-"Although God's revelation is perfect, man's view of that revelation is not perfect"

-"language has ambiguity"
-"Humans can't interpret or understand that revelation."
-"You have to study the Greek text just as much as you have to study it in English"

He then asked me what one of the big points was that had me converted to this thinking, and I explained that while it wasn't one of the main reasons now, it was THE fact that completely won me over to a KJB Only view was Isaish 14:12, where it uses Jesus's title "Morning Star" to describe Lucifer, and I told him that this blasphemy drove me deeper into study and I could never "reconcile" with the NIV because of that.

He responded -"You can't stay that one title can't be reused, it happens in the Bible, where do you find the difference in "Baal" in the OT Hebrew, and decide that it should be LORD and not Lord or lord."

We got started talking about I John 5:7, and my Bible teacher admitted that when I showed him all of the early church father quotations of the Comma, he was stumped. The response from the scholar?

"We all paraphrase. We don't know whether they were quoting scripture here or paraphrasing."

He also gave the argument that the Word is not bound to the words, so the words are not the inspired speech of God. I really, really wanted to pretty much quote Brandon from the other day on "Were early fundamentals KJVOnly?" However, I tried to be respectful and not interrupt.

"There can be many highly accurate Bibles, every one sparks controversy, and they are all the Word of God, just like the King James.

As follows are the points he made that I could not argue against (if I had the chance) simply because I am not a scholar.

-2 Tim 2:15 "'The Greek' says 'be diligent'"
-"No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"
-"Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."
-"'I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners (without 'to repentance' is correct) because it was added later by Christians to explain what Jesus meant.

In my head, I thought, "A non-heretic correcting Jesus?"

[Brother Tim]

What immediately came to my mind was:

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

[Debau]

Originally Posted by Paladin54

Most of the things he said were so ordinary

Hardly ordinary. More like extraordinary! (TR mss are "outdated", no evidence codex aleph, B,and A are corrupt!?) Glad you stood fast. Sounded like monologue rather than dialogue.
Is this going to be available for public "consumption"?(wriiten or video)
Did he give you a TNIV?....

[George]

Great Job brother! I was concerned for you but, thank God, it sounds like the renowned "scholar" was a "lightweight". Keep up the good work and never let any "scholar" or "expert" ever get you down!

Let’s check out the “truth” of these 2 statements:

"No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"

"Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."

Here are some “FACTS” concerning three (3) of those “Codexes”:

The manuscript known as Vaticanus or manuscript B, ‘conveniently’ omits: Genesis 1:1-46; Psalms 108-138;the Pauline Pastoral Epistles;andinthebookof Hebrews - everything after Hebrews 9:14; and the entire Book of Revelation. And that’s not even counting the hundreds of other places it adds, subtracts, or changes verses and words from the “Textus Receptus”!

Is it a mere coincidence that a “bible” manuscript residing in the Vatican Library in Rome (which no one other than Roman Catholic ‘scholars’ can see or handle) doesn’t have the beginning, or the middle, or the end of the Bible? Don’t you think it’s just a little bit too ‘convenient’ that the Pauline Epistles-that describe the Biblical qualifications for a bishop or elder are also ‘missing’? And what about the ‘unfortunate loss’ of the chapters and verses from Hebrews 9:14 to Hebrews 13:25, which ‘just happen’ to contain some of the strongest and clearest verses in the Bible dealing with the ONE, Eternal, Effectual, Sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour! Quite a ‘coincidence’ for a manuscript found in the Pope’s Library wouldn’t you say?

The manuscript known as Sinaiticus or ‘Aleph’ is considered, to be the second most valuable manuscript (after Vaticanus) in existence. It is said, by the “scholars’”, to be in agreement with Vaticanus most of the time and has been placed in the so-called “Alexandrian Family” of manuscripts. There is evidence of approximately 10 “correctors” on the pages of this manuscript. That is, at one time or another and over the space of several hundred years, 10 different ‘scribes’ have tried their hand at ‘correcting’ this “venerated” manuscript!

The truth is that other than agreeing with Vaticanus in some vital areas against the Textus Receptus:

“It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”
(Page 12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

Upon comparing B, Aleph, A, C, and D, Dean Burgon states:

“Singular to relate, the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these codices (B, Aleph, C, D), but especially B and Aleph, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another.”
(Pages 11-12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

And again:

“Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. . . . . . Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly Received Text, with which they have been carefully collated. On being referred to this standard, in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2,877 words: to add, 536: to substitute, 935: to transpose, 2,098: to modify, 1,132 (in all 7,578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being severally 3,455, 839, 1,114, 2,299, 1,265 (in all 8,972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both.”
(Pages 11-12, The Revision Revised, 1883 – Dean John William Burgon)

According to the ‘scholars’ the next manuscript, Codex D, was produced about (400-500 A.D.)and was written in two languages (Greek and Latin). According to Dean Burgon:

“But by far the most depraved text is that exhibited by Codex D. No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations. It’s variations from the sacred Text are beyond all other example.” And again: “Though a large portion of the Gospels is missing, in what remains (tested by the same standard) we find 3,704 words omitted: no less than 2,213 added, and 2,121 substituted. The words transposed amount to 3,471: and 1,772 have been modified: the deflections from the Received Text thus amounting in all to 13,281.”

Please remember – these 13,281 “deflections” from the Received Text have been noted only in the Gospels and Codex D has “a large portion” of the Gospels MISSING! How many changes would there be if the whole manuscript were compared with the Received Text? Codex D is blatant proof that “older” is not always “better”. All manuscripts are individual witnesses to the text of Scripture. What kind of witnesses are Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Codex D?

What did the “scholar” say? There is: "No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"! ! ! Was he kidding? Are we to trade in our King James Bibles for a botched up mess like this?

And what about: "Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."

Almost all of these Codexes and most of the Papyrus fragments are said to be from one Geographical area – EGYPT! NOT – Jerusalem; or Caesarea; or Antioch (The Apostle Paul’s “Headquarters”). In addition, a study of any “reliable” church history will trace some of the most corrupt church “fathers” (Clement, Origen, etc.) to the same geographical area! "Coinkidence"? I trow not! Remember - “Birds of a Feather Flock Together” (I’ve forgotten the reference)

Let’s get one thing straight. No one knows for sure who wrote Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Aleph), Alexandrinus (A), or Codex D. With the exception of the Gothic, Armenian, and Latin Vulgate Translations, we do not know the names of the scribes for the thousands of manuscripts in existence today. In other words these manuscripts have no real known history and the dates given to them are at best, just “educated guesses”.

John William Burgon was one of the pre-imminent New Testament ‘Scholars’ of the 19th. Century, and unlike Westcott and Hort, he traveled throughout Europe personally examining New Testament manuscripts (mss) collating and comparing them. He matriculated and lived in England for most of his life. See: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/

Birth and Early Life. John William Burgon, the Dean of Chichester, was born on August 21, 1813, in Smyrna, a province of Greece. He has been called "the champion of the impossible."
Concern for Students. When Burgon was a pastor, he not only preached two or three times on Sunday, but also had Bible Study at seven o'clock in the early morning with the Oxford students. They came in the evening to study also.
Eight times in a term, Pastor Burgon met with young men. For four years he taught them the book of Genesis without completing the book during that time. Ninety-six nights of teaching! Not a word, a sentence, or a chapter was skipped. His plan was to make the Bible its own commentary. He was a teacher of minute details. The result was that his students came to know other books of the Bible at the same time.
Quotations of the Church Fathers. As a result of his research, Burgon compiled an index of sixteen folio volumes of more than 86,000 quotations of or allusions to Scripture which were used by the Church Fathers. These indexes were about 12" by 18" by 3" in size. They are presently in London's BritishMuseum. They have been catalogued by Dean Burgon and his associates. Each quotation or allusion is color-coded to show the exact page and version of the Church Fathers from which they were derived. These are very valuable indexes, but as yet are unpublished.

In addition to his monumental work on the church “fathers” (Never Published) - Burgon authored:

“The Last Twelve Verses in Mark”
“The Revision Revised”
“The Traditional Text”
“Causes of Corruption”

If you want to know about the Byzantine/Traditional/Textus Receptus “TEXT” – Burgon is your man. No one ‘scholar’ (before or after him) has ever matched him in his area of “expertise”.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You cannot trust these "scholars" to speak the "Truth"! The fact that some of them "may be" Christians doesn't change the reality - They are not to be trusted in the smallest of matters. None of them believe the Bible when it says: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [Galatians 5:9]

[Debau]

"No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"

"Upon comparing B, Aleph, A, C, and D"

Here is a great "picture" of these grossly corrupt manuscripts.

www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks Paladin. Well, yes, a lightweight, but the 'heavyweights' are just heavier in craftiness and subtlety, their 'scholarship' is the same. A lot of those issues are amply covered here.

One question on the above, when you brought up Lucifer and Isaiah 14:12.

"where do you find the difference in "Baal" in the OT Hebrew, and decide that it should be LORD"

I can understand that baal is used in more than one way in the OT, however where is it used as the Tetragram, LORD (Jehovah) ?

Shalom,
Steven