[peopleoftheway]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I agree. The vast majority of members of this forum hold to the belief that God provided in 1611 through King James what's in the verse above, the whole counsel of God, not bits and fragments here and there in this text and manuscript or that payrus fragment or Vaticanus. A very good test for authenticity of any bible or manuscript or text is the reading of the next verse in Acts, verse 28 and whether it's been altered to hide the doctrine that God purchased the Church with His own blood, pointing to the Deity of Christ, the number one corruption category among the texts, manuscripts, and versions.



Grace and peace friends.

Tony

Quite right Brother Tony, and if we look to Colossians 1:14 we can see a similar occurrence of the very blood of Christ being drained from his word.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJB)

14in whom we have redemption,[e] the forgiveness of sins. (niv)

The Lords precious blood removed and diminished to a footnote

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by peopleoftheway

Quite right Brother Tony, and if we look to Colossians 1:14 we can see a similar occurrence of the very blood of Christ being drained from his word.

Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJB)

14in whom we have redemption,[e] the forgiveness of sins. (niv)

The Lords precious blood removed and diminished to a footnote

When the idiot Gnostic scribe who jerked "blood" out of this verse did so brother, he made the reading to be that redemption and forgiveness of sins were the same thing, read the verse without the word "blood".

Grace and peace my brother

Tony

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

When the idiot Gnostic scribe who jerked "blood" out of this verse did so brother, he made the reading to be that redemption and forgiveness of sins were the same thing, read the verse without the word "blood".

Grace and peace my brother

Tony

Why did the "idiot Gnostic scribe" not also jerk the blood out of Ephesians 1:7?

Or is it just possible that a scribe inserted the blood in the Colossians passage because of his knowledge of the Ephesians passage?

One thing that concerns me about the "removal" arguments is that A) they invent an unporven reason for the removal, and B) they seem to have no adequate answer for the more likely insertion argument.

[peopleoftheway]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Why did the "idiot Gnostic scribe" not also jerk the blood out of Ephesians 1:7?

Or is it just possible that a scribe inserted the blood in the Colossians passage because of his knowledge of the Ephesians passage?

One thing that concerns me about the "removal" arguments is that A) they invent an unporven reason for the removal, and B) they seem to have no adequate answer for the more likely insertion argument.

You are as two faced as they come, you say you "live by" the King James Bible and yet there you go again attacking it by defending modern versions that diminish, and I am not just talking about the two particular passages above, but throughout the entire Bible, verses, words, even chapters.
Can you honestly sit there and defend any modern version that does this
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Or can you in your infinite wisdom explain them all away? What did the translators you are defending do with the Godhead? were did they insert that elsewhere in their version? why did they remove the name JESUS 38 times?

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

One thing that concerns me about the "removal" arguments is that A) they invent an unporven reason for the removal, and B) they seem to have no adequate answer for the more likely insertion argument.

From my "Magic Marker Binge" http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this:

Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?

"More likely," riiiiight.

Originally Posted by peopleoftheway

You are as two faced as they come, you say you "live by" the King James Bible and yet there you go again attacking it by defending modern versions that diminish, and I am not just talking about the two particular passages above, but throughout the entire Bible, verses, words, even chapters.
Can you honestly sit there and defend any modern version that does this
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Or can you in your infinite wisdom explain them all away? What did the translators you are defending do with the Godhead? were did they insert that elsewhere in their version? why did they remove the name JESUS 38 times?

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

There is nothing "two faced" about pointing out that there are other legitimate explanations for your charge of intentional tampering. In order to prove your charge of intentional tampering, you must directly connect a person, motive, and action. You cannot put these all together in the correct historical context. As far as I know, only KJOs and atheist/agnostics believe that gnostics sucessfully tampered with the New testament Textual stream.

As to removing the name of Christ, here are some word counts I did:

Christ Jesus
KJV 58
NKJV 69
NASB 87
NIV 87

Christ Jesus our Lord
KJV 5
NKJV 7
NASB 7
NIV 7

Jesus our Lord
KJV 7
NKJV 9
NASB 12
NIV 10

Jesus
KJV 942
NKJV 1040
NASB 990
NIV 1276

Christ
KJV 537
NKJV 584
NASB 528
NIV 531

Lord Jesus Christ
KJV 82
NKJV 81
NASB 62
NIV 60

It would be refreshing to see more discussions here that acknowledged the strength and vaadity of other positions instead of calling people names and calling their love of God's Word into question.

[bibleprotector]

gnostics sucessfully tampered with the New testament Textual stream

No they did not: otherwise the Word of God would have been hopelessly corrupted and lost. But God has provided a wide, general and open way of preserving and revealing His true words!

It would be refreshing to see more discussions here that acknowledged the strength and va[l]adity of other positions

It would not. "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." (Isaiah 28:12).

calling their love of God's Word into question.

I hardly have to do that for someone who would leap to James White's defence (Dr White is an ardent anti-King James Bible author, whose work does not provoke love but rather demotion of the KJB).

[George]

Originally Posted by peopleoftheway

You are as two faced as they come, you say you "live by" the King James Bible and yet there you go again attacking it by defending modern versions that diminish, and I am not just talking about the two particular passages above, but throughout the entire Bible, verses, words, even chapters.
Can you honestly sit there and defend any modern version that does this
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Or can you in your infinite wisdom explain them all away? What did the translators you are defending do with the Godhead? were did they insert that elsewhere in their version? why did they remove the name JESUS 38 times?

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Aloha brother Steve,

Here we go AGAIN! "solabiblia" chooses to believe the imaginary "suppositions" of the Westcott & Hort "THEORY", RATHER than the scripturally sound reasoning of Dean John William Burgon! "solabiblia" is a WOLF in SHEEP'S CLOTHING! Burgon wrote perhaps the two best books covering this issue: "The Causes Of Textual Corruption" and "The Traditional Text".

I doubt if our "intellectual elitist" has READ them, and if he has - he has chosen to IGNORE them. This man ("solabiblia") has chosen to follow the road to apostasy - he would rather believe that a Bible believing scribe would "insert" words (ADD) into the Holy Text, than believe, the more likely scenario, that a Bible "corrector" (much like himself) would take words (SUBTRACT) out of the Holy Text, with which he didn't agree!

Think about that! WHO is more likely to CHANGE (or ADD or SUBTRACT) from the Holy words of God - People like most of us on this Forum (i.e. genuine Bible believers - WHO believe in the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's word) or people like "solabiblia" and "greektim" (Bible correctors - WHO have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than their OWN OPINIONS)?

There is only one Scriptural way to deal with Bible correctors (and it ain't "engage" them; "coddle" them; be "nice" to them; and maybe someday they will "come around"). No the Scriptural way to deal with ALL Bible correctors (regardless of WHO they are - or how old they are) is to:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.

Did you notice how the Holy Bible spells out HOW these people will operate? "GOOD WORDS & FAIR SPEECHES"! You don't have to be on Guard against a "mean" old curmudgeon (like myself). You always know where I'm coming from. You have to beware of the "sweet talking" people who through "good words and fair speeches" seek to undermine the faith of believers!

You and I can never change these people's hearts. They have chosen their course, and unless Almighty God intervenes in their life in some way, they will not change!

So, do we obey what God COMMANDS us to do in Romans 16:17-18, or do we follow our own "instincts" and IGNORE what God has said? That is the question that all genuine Bible believers have to ask themselves.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

[Winman]

Bravo Bro George!

I agree with you, you are never going to get anywhere with these folks. And the Bible tells what their problem is:

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly

These folks are nothing but snobbish pseudo scholars. Their motive is to impress people with their scholarship and intelligence, or sell corruptions for gain, not serve Christ. They think it sport to come to a forum like this with real Bible believers to cause (very unsuccessfully) doubt.

Pro 10:23 It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.

[peopleoftheway]

Brother George and I agree, I shall have nothing more to do with this man, his motives or his methods.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.

I really am a simple man, I have no vast vocabulary or knowledge, nor have a memory that serves me to memorize 50 chapters of scripture, but what I do know for certain is that the Lord has blessed me with "discernment" and I am certain no discussion with this man will lead to edification nor will it bear fruit.
No not on this forum.

PS. Brother George you are no curmudgeon, I have told you many times you remind me so much of my Grandfather, he takes no prisoners, tells it like it is, preaches the Gospel in a way even the simplest of hearts and minds can fathom, and is no respector of persons and knows he holds all of Gods words, in the one place in the one book, the King James Bible.
God Bless you, I have learned so much from you during my time on this forum.