FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
Last edited by Brother Tim; 04-29-2008 at 08:38 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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... Last edited by Debau; 05-02-2008 at 07:28 PM. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
![]() |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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?" Last edited by Paladin54; 05-04-2008 at 01:18 PM. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
What immediately came to my mind was:
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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?.... |
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]()
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: Quote:
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: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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: Quote:
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] |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
|