Honest Assessment of Tongues

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#81
No actually people want to disregard the words cease, vanish away and fail as applied to specific gifts as found in 1st Corinthians 13!

Sorry,have to disagree on this one my friend. When we pick one verse and make a religion based on it without context we are in error.

[h=1]1 Corinthians 13...[/h]
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


People ignore what is being talked about in these verses.Paul is talking about love,how love will never cease.When the perfect comes the partial will pass away. Have prophesies passed away,has knowledge? No. It says "For we know in part and we prophesy in part" and then "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This is a time to come in the future,we are not yet there. If knowledge and prophesy hasnt ceased then tongues have not either. Anyone who has truly experienced tongues knows this to be true.And that is not to be spiritually superior either.I know tongues to be real.
 
E

ember

Guest
#82
I agree that tongues is not "now" a sign for unbelieving Israel, but, you need to read Acts 2:5-37

For the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 1Cor.1:22
What is not being acknowledged or maybe has not been addressed, is that tongues in both a sign and a gift...it is BOTH

I don't need signs...don't want 'em..don't ask for 'em...can't speak for others

Concerning Spiritual Gifts1Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[SUP]a[/SUP] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[SUP]b[/SUP] 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Tongues are not only a sign
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#83
And why don't the tongue people ever quote 1Cor.14 where Paul says that the tongues should be interpreted?
Tongues should be interpreted when spoken within a group of people.Otherwise the person speaking in tongues is to remain silent. I agree with that.I dont know what "tongues people" you know but they have poor teaching if they dont understand this concept.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#84
Sorry,have to disagree on this one my friend. When we pick one verse and make a religion based on it without context we are in error.

1 Corinthians 13...


If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


People ignore what is being talked about in these verses.Paul is talking about love,how love will never cease.When the perfect comes the partial will pass away. Have prophesies passed away,has knowledge? No. It says "For we know in part and we prophesy in part" and then "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This is a time to come in the future,we are not yet there. If knowledge and prophesy hasnt ceased then tongues have not either. Anyone who has truly experienced tongues knows this to be true.And that is not to be spiritually superior either.I know tongues to be real.

Whatever.....vs. 8 is clear...as for TONGUES, they WILL cease and vs. 13 is clear...NOW ABIDES faith, hope and LOVE! and PAUL who was an APOSTLE and taught BY direct REVELATION of the which YOU and I are NOT said clearly he would rather speak 5 WORDS of UNDERSTANDING than 10000 in an UNKNOWN LANGUAGE...<---God inspired that statement as well....I think I will stick with Paul's understanding and his INSPIRED view and the words GOD inspired him to write over all the opinions of men and women who make their whole religion based upon some mumbo jumbo that has no practical application in the Lord's churches! No offence meant!
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#85
Or where Paul said he would rather speak 5 words of understanding than 10000 in an unknown LANGUAGE!

Yes he was talking about order in the church because he didnt want these new believers all speaking in tongues over each other at one time. He did not say speaking in tongues was wrong or not to speak in tongues.He said tongues should edify the church and it is to be interpreted.If it is not then the speaker is to be silent and talk to God themselves.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#86
Whatever.....vs. 8 is clear...as for TONGUES, they WILL cease and vs. 13 is clear...NOW ABIDES faith, hope and LOVE! and PAUL who was an APOSTLE and taught BY direct REVELATION of the which YOU and I are NOT said clearly he would rather speak 5 WORDS of UNDERSTANDING than 10000 in an UNKNOWN LANGUAGE...<---God inspired that statement as well....I think I will stick with Paul's understanding and his INSPIRED view and the words GOD inspired him to write over all the opinions of men and women who make their whole religion based upon some mumbo jumbo that has no practical application in the Lord's churches! No offence meant!

Well first it is not mumbo jumbo but I understand you may have seen a church in total disorder where it may have seemed this way.Unfortunately this gift seems the easiest to misuse. Done in proper order tongues edifies the church. The point being made was LOVE will never cease,all else will pass away but LOVE. It is not saying knowledge has now ceased nor tongues,nor prophesies. You may not see a need for tongues but if you were a missionary you might well change your mind.And no Im not offended.You and I agree about 90% of the time so its a small percentage where we disagree.I dont think I agree with some of my own family that much! lol
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
#87
dcontroversial, I do think you are missing out... I realize you will disagree, but I want to remind you that even Paul pointed out that "we see in part". By being unwilling to consider an alternate view of the scriptures interpretation... you are loosing out on something that others are telling you is good for BUILDING UP the body. Don't you want to be edified in your spirit in a supernatural way?
 
I

Is

Guest
#88
The so-called "majority texts" or Textus Receptus are later texts which were written in Greek and embellished by the scribes in many verses. They are not considered reliable by true scholars. Whereas the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are much earlier and agree with the other early manuscripts.

The only reason the Byzantium manuscripts are the "majority" is because the east kept the Greek language, and the scribes continued to copy (and add to!) those manuscripts.

KJV people always cite these spurious texts and claim the variants are major in the earliest texts, when in fact the differences are neglible. It is only the later manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20, which so clearly states that it was written long after the autographs and added to the text. There was nothing more exciting to a Byzantium scribe than adding a few words of explanation in the margin, which sadly were added to later texts. The Greek scribes did not adhere to the strict rules the Hebrew scribes did in order to preserve the Word of God. That is why the earlier texts are more reliable, because they have not been altered and changed the way the later Greek manuscripts were.

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).

Vaticanus

Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, but a blank space is left for that section of Scripture. The following testimony is by John Burgon, who examined Vaticanus personally:

“To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, St. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. HE HAS LEFT IN THIS PLACE ONE COLUMN ENTIRELY VACANT. IT IS THE ONLY VACANT COLUMN IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT -- A BLANK SPACE ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO CONTAIN THE TWELVE VERSES WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS WITHHELD. WHY DID HE LEAVE THAT COLUMN VACANT? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -- and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated, 1871, pp. 86-87)

Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son” is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.
Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Sinaiticus

"In the year 1844, while travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here, observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty-three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. Some enemies of the defense of the King James Bible have claimed that the manuscripts were not found in a "waste basket," but they were. That is exactly how Tischendorf described it. "I perceived a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers..." (Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, p. 23).

John Burgon, who was alive when Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus and also personally visited St. Catherine's to research ancient manuscripts, testified that the manuscripts "got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent." (The Revision Revised, 1883, pp. 319, 342)

So, it looks like the Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the 4th century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the 12th century.

Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

Is Older Better?

Bible students are often told that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are better (i.e. more accurate) than other manuscripts because they are older. So, let's examine if OLDER necessarily equates with BETTER.

The whole subject of New Testament criticism is too complex to discuss here (or for me to try to discuss anywhere!), but it is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, or some modification thereof (such as the Nestle-Aland text), whereas the King James Bible is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus (aka the Received Text or the Byzantine Greek Text).

Of significance is the fact that Westcott and Hort were involved in the occult and spiritism and they both hated ("reviled" in their own words) the Textus Receptus. So, what did they do? They basically "invented" their own Greek text, which was based primarily on two very corrupt 4th century Catholic manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1844 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery near Mount Sinai).

Since the late 1800's, their Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by two Germans, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials, they were "closet" Roman Catholics, denied the inerrancy of Scripture, hated the Biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement, believed that all men were gods, and were involved in spiritism and the occult.

The evidence shows that both codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are corrupt beyond measure. To be honest, they are "better" in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. These two codices are older than other Greek manuscripts, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying "You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world," or, "the most beautiful women have the best characters."

It is interesting to note that these two manuscripts are NOT older than the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian), all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. These anient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; so the "older is better" argument should not be used.
 
I

Is

Guest
#89
dcontroversial, I do think you are missing out... I realize you will disagree, but I want to remind you that even Paul pointed out that "we see in part". By being unwilling to consider an alternate view of the scriptures interpretation... you are loosing out on something that others are telling you is good for BUILDING UP the body. Don't you want to be edified in your spirit in a supernatural way?
Don't you want to be edified in your spirit in a supernatural way?
I think you are being controlled in a supernatural way, but, it's not the kind that is good for the Church. Wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#90
I dont think this is an Honest Assessment but simply one persons opinion.Which is fine but like a pancake there are two sides to any discussion and anyone who has experienced tongues,not abused it,know it to be true. Scriptures can be misunderstood or twisted.I can attest it is real and for today.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
#91
dcontroversial, I do think you are missing out... I realize you will disagree, but I want to remind you that even Paul pointed out that "we see in part". By being unwilling to consider an alternate view of the scriptures interpretation... you are loosing out on something that others are telling you is good for BUILDING UP the body. Don't you want to be edified in your spirit in a supernatural way?
I don't need tongues as I am a believer, who is mature and in no need of a sign that was meant for immature believers.....thanks anyway! I get all I need...including edification by the written word of God which is easy enough to understand!
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
#92
I think you are being controlled in a supernatural way, but, it's not the kind that is good for the Church. Wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more.
I was not speaking to YOU.
But now I am... So the readers should conclude making comments which are expressly DEVISIVE and MOCKING in nature IS good for the church?
 
B

BarlyGurl

Guest
#93
Thank you for your being considerate in response dcontroversial.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#94
as for taring a page out of the bible...
very true! we want to be watchful for times when someone took away from - or added to - the scriptures...


I really don't blame the byzantine scholar (if that's who did it) for adding his own ideas at the end of the book... I like to write in my bible too!
 
Jan 2, 2015
149
3
0
#95
Well Jesus said you would have the signs and some say they dont and want to be called Christian or a believer..!!??

a contradiction in terms ..1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

sorry that you think speaking to God ( HIS WAY ) is immature or unnecessary ..and to take something out of context and make a pretext out of it !!!!!! ie :

8 ¶ Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

to remove the middle one !!! we still have Knowledge and increasing...scriptural and techno..we still have prophecy to fulfill..the return of Christ Jesus for one....

if the light you think you have is actually darkness ..how great is the darkness..
 
P

popeye

Guest
#96
When I speak in tongues I am edifying and building up the gift God has given me [Jude 1:20] - that new creation in me gets fat!!! I am praising God and having intimate conversation with Him - His Spirit bearing witness with my spirit that I am a child of God [Rom. 8:16]. It brings me great joy.
very nicely put.

It also appears the one who spake in tongues more than all the others was inspired enough to write 1/2 the new testament.

IOW,he "did it" while speaking in tongues.(in mo)
 
P

popeye

Guest
#97
Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).

Vaticanus

Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, but a blank space is left for that section of Scripture. The following testimony is by John Burgon, who examined Vaticanus personally:

“To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which is unquestionably the oldest we possess, St. Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly at the eighth verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St. Mark’s Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. HE HAS LEFT IN THIS PLACE ONE COLUMN ENTIRELY VACANT. IT IS THE ONLY VACANT COLUMN IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT -- A BLANK SPACE ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO CONTAIN THE TWELVE VERSES WHICH HE NEVERTHELESS WITHHELD. WHY DID HE LEAVE THAT COLUMN VACANT? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -- and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against the concluding verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings into prominent notice at the end of fifteen centuries and a half, a more ancient witness than itself.” (Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark Vindicated, 1871, pp. 86-87)

Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son” is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.
Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Sinaiticus

"In the year 1844, while travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here, observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty-three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. Some enemies of the defense of the King James Bible have claimed that the manuscripts were not found in a "waste basket," but they were. That is exactly how Tischendorf described it. "I perceived a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers..." (Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, p. 23).

John Burgon, who was alive when Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus and also personally visited St. Catherine's to research ancient manuscripts, testified that the manuscripts "got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent." (The Revision Revised, 1883, pp. 319, 342)

So, it looks like the Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the 4th century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the 12th century.

Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

Is Older Better?

Bible students are often told that the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are better (i.e. more accurate) than other manuscripts because they are older. So, let's examine if OLDER necessarily equates with BETTER.

The whole subject of New Testament criticism is too complex to discuss here (or for me to try to discuss anywhere!), but it is significant that almost all of the new versions of the New Testament are based on what is known as the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, or some modification thereof (such as the Nestle-Aland text), whereas the King James Bible is based largely on what is known as the Textus Receptus (aka the Received Text or the Byzantine Greek Text).

Of significance is the fact that Westcott and Hort were involved in the occult and spiritism and they both hated ("reviled" in their own words) the Textus Receptus. So, what did they do? They basically "invented" their own Greek text, which was based primarily on two very corrupt 4th century Catholic manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1844 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery near Mount Sinai).

Since the late 1800's, their Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by two Germans, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials, they were "closet" Roman Catholics, denied the inerrancy of Scripture, hated the Biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement, believed that all men were gods, and were involved in spiritism and the occult.

The evidence shows that both codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are corrupt beyond measure. To be honest, they are "better" in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. These two codices are older than other Greek manuscripts, but for anyone to suggest that they are more accurate is absurd. It is like someone saying "You will find the greatest TRUTH being preached in the oldest and most beautiful cathedrals of the world," or, "the most beautiful women have the best characters."

It is interesting to note that these two manuscripts are NOT older than the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian), all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. These anient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; so the "older is better" argument should not be used.
I studied this in some depth before I purchased Green's interlinear (recieved text).

Yes the recieved is the most accurate.

That is about all I agree with you on. Your cessationist views are boggus,and your reference to the HS as some "other spirit"
Is reckless and ignorant.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#98
Dr. David Brown observes...
lots of great research in your post...

as I understand it, the heavy majority of nt scholars say the longer ending isn't part of the original... (btw, that's different from saying it's not God's word...)

since I can't travel to the museums or meet the scholars personally, I'm gonna have to choose a side to agree with...

so maybe the majority of scholars are led by satan to try to corrupt God's word...

or maybe they are on the whole honest folks who do their best to maintain high standards and be respected by their peers...

[ oddly, when people buy a nt greek dictionary, they usually don't suspect that the authors are trying to mislead them... also, I've seen Wescott criticized many times, but never Thayer (wrote a greek lexicon) ]
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#99
very nicely put.

It also appears the one who spake in tongues more than all the others was inspired enough to write 1/2 the new testament.

IOW,he "did it" while speaking in tongues.(in mo)
Craftiness of words is in evidence here.

Care to illustrate anything that Paul said in tongues? His half of the NT was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but tongues I really don't think so.

The appearance of tongues in the NT men understood and there was no confusion. In the modern church it is not so.

Tongues are a sign of judgment not blessing. Starting at the tower of Babel through the captivities of Israel and unto today.

In Revelation we see the 144,000 singing a new song that only they could sing and no other man could learn it. Something to ponder for those with enough depth of character.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
P

popeye

Guest
Craftiness of words is in evidence here.

Care to illustrate anything that Paul said in tongues? His half of the NT was by inspiration of the Holy Spirit but tongues I really don't think so.

The appearance of tongues in the NT men understood and there was no confusion. In the modern church it is not so.

Tongues are a sign of judgment not blessing. Starting at the tower of Babel through the captivities of Israel and unto today.

In Revelation we see the 144,000 singing a new song that only they could sing and no other man could learn it. Something to ponder for those with enough depth of character.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
This post is revealing of someone that has been taught by cessationists with a portion of the bible.