the Error in the "Error" of saying there is an Error in Gods word

[Dino246]

The 1611 KJV had marginal notes, with both cross-references and alternate wordings. Most KJV Bibles published today exclude these.

 

[CS1]

I realize that. I was referring to Joseppi, and to a lesser extent, John146, both of whom are vocal KJV-only proponents.

OH they do? Ok thank you .

 

[John146]

This is an excellent scholarly article, from a reliable source, a conservative Christian website. I highly recommend everyone read it, even if you only get to the graph comparison, which show that literally, the Byzantine text did not exist before the 4th century, that early church father’s had their texts “revised” as late as the 9th century to correspond to the Majority Text, that the TR doesn’t even agree with the Majority Text in many places, but more importantly, the textual variants make so little difference to doctrine, that the whole issue is overblown! (Oh, the footnotes in the article are also excellent - worth a read!)

As far as footnotes, the issue is NOT modern footnotes. Those are clearly marked, the bottom of the page is the preferred place, and yes, comments are often made as to the arguments in the particular quotes.

The footnotes that affect the text are in the Byzantine texts, where a scribe makes a comment in the margin. It could be short or long, but it is always extraneous to the text. And, these manuscripts actually exist, where for the first time, something was added to a particular verses, usually in the margin.

Those type of footnotes are common, and it is easy to identify they are not part of the text. The problem arose, because the next generation of scribes would then copy that margin note into the actual text. And so would the next generation, and all the sucessive notes. So, by the 9th century, there were a lot of notes which had been comments on the sides, now part of the actual texts.

A lot of these are to make a text have high Christiology. So Mark, who alwatys referred to Jesus by his name, “Jesus” has many attempts to make it say “The Lord Jesus” or “The Lord Jesus Christ.” The longer ending of Mark is rife with this mistake.

I am not an expert on textual criticism. I have read the intro to Kostenberger’s 2nd year Greek text, “Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament.” Also, FF Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture” has some information on textual criticism. Mostly, I rely on my commentaries, which are whole books on various books of the Bible. The New International Commentary on the Greek New Testament” is one of the best sources, but the series is not yet finished, so then I got to other commentaries. Textual issues are dealt with in these commentaries.

Really, the people with their KJVOnlyism are quite laughable. They know nothing of the original languages, nothing of textual criticism, have never read a real commentary, and yet, they stoutly maintain that any other Biblical translation is not pure or corrupted. I think if they even read the article Ariel posted, they would shake their heads and wonder how they could believe that the KJV was the only version. Well, I guess the revert to some kind of “only inspired text” nonsense, because from a manuscript evidence point of view, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

As for how bad the Alexandrian texts are, it was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athenasius, who first stood against the Arian heresy, brought it to a council, where it was decided that Jesus was both God and man. So, some good doctrine coming out of Alexandria, at a time when the Byzantine text didn’t even exist.

I would challenge you to read in God's word what God has said concerning Alexandria, Egypt and compare it to Antioch. God's word will show the way.

 

[trofimus]

I would challenge you to read in God's word what God has said concerning Alexandria, Egypt and compare it to Antioch. God's word will show the way.

And I would challenge you to compare fruits, as Christ commands.

1) Alexandria defended true Christianity against heresies in Antioch.

2) KJVO guys are frequently believing in their own theologies, not compatible with basic Christian creeds.

Explain that, please.

 

[Chester]

FYI I'm not a contributor of this thread I'm the Orginator of the thread LOL ahahahha.
Toast .... please your to funny.

Sorry, sir! I didn't mean to get out of line.

It looks like I made two mistakes:
(1) I called you only a contributor and you are the originator of the thread: I am very, very sorry for insulting you!
(2) And the second mistake is that I am "too funny" - I will try not to be so humerous in the future! (Hope that tickles your funny bone! LOL!) Hey, thank you for being so polite to me with your request to not be so humerous - you said "please"

I am very thankful you did not ban me yet, I will try to be more serious in the future.

Hey, by the way - do you practice OBAB here: (Once banned, Always banned)

 

[John146]

And I would challenge you to compare fruits, as Christ commands.

1) Alexandria defended true Christianity against heresies in Antioch.

2) KJVO guys are frequently believing in their own theologies, not compatible with basic Christian creeds.

Explain that, please.

1. I can post all the negative against Alexandria and Egypt from Scripture and the positives from Antioch

2. Bad philosophies will come equally from new versions. When one does not approach the Scriptures with a humble and pure heart, one can be deceived not matter the version one reads.

 

[trofimus]

1. I can post all the negative against Alexandria and Egypt from Scripture and the positives from Antioch

2. Bad philosophies will come equally from new versions. When one does not approach the Scriptures with a humble and pure heart, one can be deceived not matter the version one reads.

1) If it was historically Alexandria, defending the deity of Christ and other basics of our faith, you cannot argue by allegorial texts in Scripture about Egypt as being appliable to our Christian history.

 

[John146]

1) If it was historically Alexandria, defending the deity of Christ and other basics of our faith, you cannot argue by allegorial texts in Scripture about Egypt as being appliable to our Christian history.

You haven't shown proof of Alexandria defending anything as of yet, sorry if I missed it. And please don't bring up Origen. Allegorical or not, we better head the warning God gives us through Scripture.

 

[trofimus]

You haven't shown proof of Alexandria defending anything as of yet

Try to google "Athanasius Contra Mundum".

Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, was defending the deity of Christ against the whole Roman Empire, when it fell into arianism (including Antioch).

 

[Dino246]

You haven't shown proof of Alexandria defending anything as of yet, sorry if I missed it. And please don't bring up Origen. Allegorical or not, we better head the warning God gives us through Scripture.

Your argument on this matter is essentially "guilt by association", not actual scriptural declarations. It is exactly the attitude that Nathanael had when he said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

You're basing a rather significant doctrinal bias on speculative extrapolation, an argument from silence. When you can find a verse that says, "Don't trust anything coming from Alexandria", then you might have something worthwhile. Until then, remember that Jesus Himself came "from Egypt".

 

[CS1]

Sorry, sir! I didn't mean to get out of line.

It looks like I made two mistakes:
(1) I called you only a contributor and you are the originator of the thread: I am very, very sorry for insulting you!
(2) And the second mistake is that I am "too funny" - I will try not to be so humerous in the future! (Hope that tickles your funny bone! LOL!) Hey, thank you for being so polite to me with your request to not be so humerous - you said "please"

I am very thankful you did not ban me yet, I will try to be more serious in the future.

Hey, by the way - do you practice OBAB here: (Once banned, Always banned)

LOL calm down Chester, you have absalutely nothing to be sorry for. You did not get out of line . you are funny and thank you for your input
And I do not "Ban people" violating the rules get you banned. LOL meaning you ban yourself LOL I just push the Button

 

[Joseppi]

They know nothing of the original languages, nothing of textual criticism, have never read a real commentary, and yet, they stoutly maintain that any other Biblical translation is not pure or corrupted. I think if they even read the article Ariel posted, they would shake their heads and wonder how they could believe that the KJV was the only version. Well, I guess the revert to some kind of “only inspired text” nonsense, because from a manuscript evidence point of view, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

With respect to scripture I stand on what is published in English in the Authorized Bible.

The modern bibles prove that modern unauthorized scholars are unable to produce any good translations.
Why is it that supposedly bright scholars can’t produce the very thing they claim to have been trying to produce?

Something is phony about the value of modern textual studies and translation since it has only produced corrupt texts in English.

I’ve watched as many on this site fail to read English well, while claiming to be educated in anything but the Holy Bible.
I suspect that many slipped away from the truth because they foolishly turned to man for helps, and forsook the leading of the Holy Ghost.

 

[John146]

Your argument on this matter is essentially "guilt by association", not actual scriptural declarations. It is exactly the attitude that Nathanael had when he said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

You're basing a rather significant doctrinal bias on speculative extrapolation, an argument from silence. When you can find a verse that says, "Don't trust anything coming from Alexandria", then you might have something worthwhile. Until then, remember that Jesus Himself came "from Egypt".

Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians" in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten.

Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don't need a "bible" from Alexandria, Egypt.

 

[Dino246]

With respect to scripture I stand on what is published in English in the Authorized Bible.

The modern bibles prove that modern unauthorized scholars are unable to produce any good translations.
Why is it that supposedly bright scholars can’t produce the very thing they claim to have been trying to produce?

Something is phony about the value of modern textual studies and translation since it has only produced corrupt texts in English.

I’ve watched as many on this site fail to read English well, while claiming to be educated in anything but the Holy Bible.
I suspect that many slipped away from the truth because they foolishly turned to man for helps, and forsook the leading of the Holy Ghost.

"The posts by the vocal KJV-only proponents in this thread perfectly exemplify the dogmatic attitude that divides believers, with the tone of "YOU'RE WRONG!" rather than "We differ; let's investigate further.""

I rest my case.

 

[Dino246]

Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians" in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten.

Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don't need a "bible" from Alexandria, Egypt.

If we followed the guilt-by-association logic you're using, we would reject everything from Jerusalem, Judea, and Israel as well, including most of the New Testament. They were far more guilty of wrongdoing than anyone in Egypt. Such reasoning simply isn't sound, and it wasn't sound when Sam Gipp used it either.

 

[John146]

If we followed the guilt-by-association logic you're using, we would reject everything from Jerusalem, Judea, and Israel as well, including most of the New Testament. They were far more guilty of wrongdoing than anyone in Egypt. Such reasoning simply isn't sound, and it wasn't sound when Sam Gipp used it either.

"Guilt by association" is a sound reason only because it is God who is giving us the warning through Scripture. Like Origen, you may not take Scripture literally, but I do. When I get warnings straight from Scripture concerning people, places and things, I heed the warning and look further into Scripture for evidence. And Scripture is full of evidence. The New Testament church moved from Jerusalem to Antioch.

 

[John146]

"The posts by the vocal KJV-only proponents in this thread perfectly exemplify the dogmatic attitude that divides believers, with the tone of "YOU'RE WRONG!" rather than "We differ; let's investigate further.""

I rest my case.

I am absolutely dogmatic when it comes to God's word. I will stand up for God's word any time it is spoken against. When God speaks, He wants His people to hear every word of His message and not a revised, altered, edited, abbreviated, watered down version.

God told Jeremiah to "Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:" Jeremiah 26:2

Most people did not want to hear what God had said, but God wanted them to hear it anyway. If Jeremiah toned down the message to make it more acceptable and pleasing to men, it would not have been acceptable and pleasing to God.

 

[Dino246]

"Guilt by association" is a sound reason only because it is God who is giving us the warning through Scripture. Like Origen, you may not take Scripture literally, but I do. When I get warnings straight from Scripture concerning people, places and things, I heed the warning and look further into Scripture for evidence. And Scripture is full of evidence. The New Testament church moved from Jerusalem to Antioch.

More silly extrapolations. I suggest you take a class in how to think logically.

 

[John146]

More silly extrapolations. I suggest you take a class in how to think logically.

We differ, let's investigate further...

 

[Ariel82]

If Egypt was so evil why did Joseph and Mary take baby to it to keep him safe?