Between the autographs and Bible translations

They derived from the Traditional family of MSS and mutilated the Scriptures. </font>[/QUOTE]Mutilated

 

These footnotes in any modern versions and these margins notes in the KJV are not same. </font>[/QUOTE]Not the same You just lost me give an example from 1611 and a MV and show me how they differ.

 

Shouldn't this get snipped? I can't believe you would impugne the Holy Scriptures like that. you are casting doubt on the Stone hewn out the mountain.

Where is the moderator when we need him.

 

I did not attack the Holy Scriptures. History proclaims it. </font>[/QUOTE]KJVO version of history? Please!

Your earlier comments most certainly did slander the Holy Scriptures (ESV and KJV alike). Your comments have been reported to the moderator, askjo.

 

Not omnipresent thats for sure - one is out of town and the other was in bed when this was posted at about 4.00 in the morning his time.

Please, please use the report post button instead of publicly questioning the moderators.

 

You must present proof for your argument - you cannot just proclaim that men mutilated the scriptures in the third century without proof. How can you simply proclaim that as fact and expect it to go unchallanged?

You post was snipped because you made a claim without any kind of evidence. This kind of attack will not be permitted.

 

Just who says this is 'history', and what 'proof' do you have to uphold this nonsense? Gail Riplinger?

You have been edited once already by the moderator for using slanderous language ('mutilated') on this BB. Again, you show your true colors by attacking, without proof, scribes who transmitted the text of the NT. This ad-hominem nonsense from KJVO advocates does not advance their cause.

 

KJVO version of history? No, you miss my point.

Did I slander ESV/KJV? Where?

History did not talk about ESV/KJV. What I talk about History is earliest time -- around 3rd Century. I did NOT slander the Holy Scriptures. History proclaims and proves that Alexandrian MSS derived from the Traditional family of MSS and men mutilated the Scriptures in around 3rd Century.

</font>[/QUOTE]I am letting this post stand because it does not directly attack a modern version of the Scruptures. I also think that we need to see the kind of argument without evidence being put forth by one side of the debate.

 

Since when is Irenaeus is proof? Can you document it?

 

Thanks for a logical argumnet Askjo - it is refreshing.

However - even if I look into that and find it true, what makes Irenaeus' opinion any more valuable than any man's opinion today? Just to help me out a bit, can you pinpoint any closer to where I can find those comments - I am looking for them now.

Book and chapter would really be nice .

[ July 25, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

http://www.gnosis.org/library/meadmarcion.htm

//As to actual history, then, Marcion started with Paul; he was the first who had really understood the mission of the Christ, and had rescued the teaching from the obscurantism of Jewish sectarianism. Of the manifold versions of the Gospel, he would have the Pauline alone. He rejected every other recension, including those now ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and John. The Gospel according to Luke, the "follower of Paul," he also rejected, regarding it as a recension to suit the views of the Judaising party. His Gospel was presumably the collection of Sayings in use among the Pauline churches of his day. Of course the Patristic writers say that Marcion mutilated Luke's version; but it is almost impossible to believe that, if he did this, so keen a critic as Marcion should have retained certain verses which made against his strong anti-Judaistic views. The Marcionites, on the contrary, contended that their Gospel was written by Paul from the direct tradition, and that Luke had nothing to do with it. But this is also a difficulty, for it is highly improbable that Paul wrote any Gospel.//

Fortunately, Marcion's works are NOT used in
Baptist churches today, so it is hardly fair
to cite him changing things.

//MARCION was a rich shipowner of Sinope, the chief port of Pontus, on the southern shore of the Black Sea; he was also a bishop and the son of a bishop. His chief activity at Rome may be placed somewhere between the years 150 and 160.//

Both Pontus on the Black Sea and Rome are a long
way from Alexandria

Praise the Logos described in the Rhema
Praise the Word described in the Word

 

Thanks - I was ploding through Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1 till you came to the rescue. Just as I suspected though - no evidence that Marcion had anything to do with Alexandrian text - just that he did as so many do today - perverted the scriptures to fit his own ideas.

[ July 26, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

As I have tried to explain to Skanwtamos, it doesn't matter what you or I regard as the definition of a word, because the basic meaning has changed. Standing on a box banging a drum will not reverse what direction the language has taken.

Yes, the definition of "faith" has changed. So, you are trying to tell us that we must re-educate every person to whom we try to explain "faith" to? Good luck. And what about the other thousand or so words whose meanings have changed, hmm?

The short of the matter is this: Languages change, especially English. What a word meant 400 years ago may not be what it means today. Take "mansions" in John 14. What is meant by the Greek word used is not a huge plantation house with marble collumns and gold plumbing fixtures. But how many preachers have you heard rant about "that fine mansion that Jesus is building for me...Glory! I can just see Him handing me the key...Why, it'll be finer than Graceland!"

Harping on what a word used to mean will not change what it means today. And neither will trying to use an outdated dictionary to prove your point. New dictionaries come out every few months. Try looking at them to see what people hear when they read the bible.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Askjo:You see, you blame on History, not me. I did not attack the Bible.

Every time you attack a version you don't like, you do.