[tonybones2112]

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.

The "insertion argument" is untenable, as it creates an impossible doctrinal deviation and interpolation cannot be proven. Redemption is not forgiveness of sins. One that an unlearned idiot would make, as I describe Origen above. You're following the bankrupt "conflation" theory Of Westcott-Hort on this verse along with the "oldest is best" falsehood. You have an unsolvable paradox with the W-H theory of manuscript "age": If the Alexandrian family of manuscripts is the correct one, then it should be represented by at least as many or not more "late" copies of itself as the "Majority Text". Where are the missing 15,000 copies of the "late" Alexandrian text? I suppose the Waldensians burned them? Who has burned Bibles for 1700 years?

Internal evidence alone impeaches the "interpolation" argument and offers the irrefutable evidence of reduction of the verse.

Ro 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

We have forgiveness of sins now.

Ro 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Through his blood we have redemption, but it is yet a future event.

Gnosticism is "unproven"? I think you need to study your history and basic theology. I think it's possible you never heard of Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Scientists, Islam, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Islam is no less a Gnostic heresy as those mentioned above, or Marcion and Sabellius(Did Jesus pray to Himself in John 17?). I think you need to read up on a pack of self-righteous theological idiots who have told God He is too blessed and good and holy that He can't appear in a human body with blood.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If you are upset by the Jesuit argument that Col. 1:14 is an "interpolation" from Ephesians 1:7 rather than a reduction, if you find "conflation" to be a problem keeps you awake at night ie; the repeating of a precept, your noodle should really be cooked by these verses:

Pr 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mr 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Lu 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Let's examine Roman Catholic duplicity with regards this verse:

Jerome's Vulgate
Eph. 1:7 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius remissionem peccatorum secundum divitias gratiae eius
Col. 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem remissionem peccatorum

We jump ahead over a thousand years to the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which was the official Latin "bible" of our Mary-worshiping friends until 1979, tacked together because of the rise of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops, Great Bible and Geneva, all who have the doctrinally correct reading in Col. 1:14 and we do want to present ourselves in our Inquisitional fury as the instrument of preservation of the Scriptures

Clementine Vulgate
Eph 1:7 In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum secundum divitias gratiæ ejus,:
Col. 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum:

Concurrent to this is the first official "bible" in English from Rome, the Douay-Rhiemes of 1599. Note the comma between "his" and "grace" in Eph. 1:7, robbing us of God's redemption, His sacrifice on Calvary's cross, and also forgiveness of sins through His grace:

Eph. 1:7 In whom wee haue redemption through his blood, the forgiuenesse of sinnes, according to the riches of his, grace,
Col 1:14 In whom we haue redemption through his blood, euen the forgiuenesse of sinnes:

Along comes Westcott-Hort, two Jesuit plants if there ever were two, and they restore the corrupted doctrinal error of Jerome, along with their American partners in crime. Their excuse is "interpolation" and "conflation" of Eph. 1:7 over to Col. 1:14:

ERV
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Col. 1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

ASV
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Col. 1:14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

Wanting to be the hero, the Douay-Rheims of 1899 jumps in as the doctrinal saviour; note the comma in Eph. 1:7:

Eph. 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace,
Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins:

After successfully penetrating the National Council Of Churches and their production of the RSV in the mid 20th century, the 1960s and 70s start a flood of "versions" that continues to this day, and Rome decides it's time to bare its claws and go back to Jerome:

(New American Bible)
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption by his blood, the forgiveness of transgressions, in accord with the riches of his grace
Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

(New Jerusalem Bible)
Eph 1:7 in whom, through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins. Such is the richness of the grace
Col. 1:14 and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.

New Latin Vulgate 1979
Eph 1:7 in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius,remissionem peccatorum,secundum divitias gratiae eius,
Col 1:14 in quo habemus redemptionem,remissionem peccatorum;

Let's talk possibilities: It's possible Rosie O'Donnell is really Paris Hilton. It's possible Jackie Kennedy put a handgun under JFK's chin and blew half his head off. It's as possible as LH Oswald doing it alone, from behind, with a defective rifle scope at 254 feet. It's possible I read celebrity's and politician's writings and was able to identify the author of intercepted uncoded messages to the Soviet military intelligence agency, the GRU, all for DIA(I could tell you some things about the 60s and 70s would frost a July morning). It's possible your spelling, grammar, and thought syntax matches Barry in FFF with a better than 98 percent probability.

Whoever you are, I would suggest you get into your Bible and learn doctrine so that you will be able to identify corruptions of the Scriptures more easily rather than corrupting it yourself.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

[ChaplainPaul]

Originally Posted by Fredoheaven

Bro. George, you're right. It is a useless and fruitless things to answer him considering a know it all man but cannot even quote any single verse of the bible to prove. Well we all have answered him already and I think that is enough. He's nothing but a bible deniers.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

The Lord in His mercy reveals in the Proverbs here that there is no "winning" with a fool. It doesn't have to be this way. They're more than welcome to keep their contentious spirit on the FFF. Personally, I'm new to dealing with them and I'm tired of it already. It's so fruitless.

[geologist]

Originally Posted by ChaplainPaul

They're more than welcome to keep their contentious spirit on the FFF. Personally, I'm new to dealing with them and I'm tired of it already. It's so fruitless.

I gave up on FFF shortly after posting a first welcome message. They jumped on my KJV belief like a dog with a rag. They really made me feel welcome...NOT.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by ChaplainPaul

The Lord in His mercy reveals in the Proverbs here that there is no "winning" with a fool. It doesn't have to be this way. They're more than welcome to keep their contentious spirit on the FFF. Personally, I'm new to dealing with them and I'm tired of it already. It's so fruitless.

Barry has probably given up on me, I got lots of time to catch up with my old Original Manuscript Fraud buddy roby. It don't bother me in the least taking the whole pack of them on, I just been pressed for time here. I spend two hours with mangled fingers putting the Jesuit fairytale on Colossians 1:14 to bed leaves little time for them.

I did get a friendship request, and I guess that's some progress. I don;t write for the Frauds, but for the casual readers, because answering them from Scripture is the decent and orderly way to do, and His words will not return unto him void.

Grace and peace Paul

Tony

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

solabiblia; do you believe there is one BOOK ON THIS EARTH TODAY THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong...?

Yes. It's called the Bible.

[QUOTE=tonybones2112;19545]The "insertion argument" is untenable, as it creates an impossible doctrinal deviation and interpolation cannot be proven. Redemption is not forgiveness of sins. One that an unlearned idiot would make, as I describe Origen above. You're following the bankrupt "conflation" theory Of Westcott-Hort on this verse along with the "oldest is best" falsehood. You have an unsolvable paradox with the W-H theory of manuscript "age": If the Alexandrian family of manuscripts is the correct one, then it should be represented by at least as many or not more "late" copies of itself as the "Majority Text". Where are the missing 15,000 copies of the "late" Alexandrian text? I suppose the Waldensians burned them? Who has burned Bibles for 1700 years?/QUOTE]

It's called the Muslim Invasion. You may have heard of it.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Erasmus renounced his priesthood and monasticism.

Really? Where is this documented? I would like to know, because it directly contradicts the following:

Erasmus never broke his vows as a priest and died under orders.
W. E. Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale and More. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949), p. 272.

“He tried to remain in the fold of the old [Roman] Church, after having damaged it seriously, and renounced the [Protestant] Reformation, and to a certain extent even Humanism, after having furthered both with all his strength.” Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (Tr. F. Hopman and Barbara Flower; New York: Harper and Row, 1924), 190.

On May 31, 1535, one year before Erasmus' death, Pope Paul III wrote Erasmus a letter thanking him for his offer of help in reforming the Catholic Church and promising Erasmus that he would be remembered with gratefulness.
Robert Blackley Drummond, Erasmus, his life and character as shown in his correspondence and works (Smith, Elder & Co., 1873), 334

Less than a year from his death. . . "It appears from the statement of Beatus, that the provostship of Deventer, a tolerably lucrative office, was pressed upon him, but declined, Erasmus thinking that he had enough to carry him to the grave."
Robert Blackley Drummond, Erasmus, his life and character as shown in his correspondence and works (Smith, Elder & Co., 1873), 334

I can find no documentation saying Erasmus renounced his office or left the Catholic church at any time. On the contrary, he was commended by the Pope near the end of his life, and was buried with honors in a Catholic cathedral.

[Brother Tim]

The destruction of vast numbers of manuscripts in the area of Antioch during the reign of Diocletian is well-documented. Once the persecution subsided, the copies began to multiply again. That is why there of few surviving Antiochian manuscripts prior to that time period, and an explosion afterward.

I have not found such information about the destruction of Alexandrian manuscripts. If this did indeed happen, one would assume that the scholars of the day would have set about to replace them using the surviving manuscripts, rather than abandoning those survivors to the dusty shelves of the Vatican (Vaticanus) or condemning them to the waste basket (Siniaticus).

The believing church maintained the flow and regeneration of the valid manuscripts and ignored the flawed and tampered ones. THAT, dear sir, is the reason for the vast difference in the numbers of extant copies of the NT.

[George]

ChaplainPaul

The Lord in His mercy reveals in the Proverbs here that there is no "winning" with a fool. It doesn't have to be this way. They're more than welcome to keep their contentious spirit on the FFF. Personally, I'm new to dealing with them and I'm tired of it already. It's so fruitless.

Aloha brother,

I've been "dealing" with "them" for over 40 years! Think how "TIRED" I am of it all!

And you're absolutely "right" - "It's so fruitless". If, after trying to "reason" with "them", I see no edification, no fruit, and no profit, I "disengage" and AVOID "them" - like the "plague"!

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Yes. It's called the Bible.

Which Bible?

where can I get a copy?