KJV and the modern versions

Absoltely TRUE!!! The apostacy is growing

 

Exactly! You surely see it. Also I surely see it. Robert Stewart is absolutely right.

Not only Carlo Maria Martini, but Dr Bruce Metzger worked with him. David Cloud announced Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. See Carlo and Bruce as "wolves", they wore the sheep's clothing and blinded many Christians.

 

Do you really believe everything David clouds says and writes?

All of the OT was translated by those who were not Christians. Very fine work can be done in text work by non-Christians.

Excellent text work is not limited to Christians.

 

You are right on both sides of the fence.

Anyone who does not making disciples shows by their practice that they do not practice what scripture teaches. In effect they are practical atheists.

 

[quote[See what Dean Burgon had to say about the Hort Westcott text, which is very similar (almost identical) to the Nestle-Aland text which is used today for many new versions.[/quote]I have seen it and found it unconvincing.

I have seen it and found it marginally convincing, but with many holes.

But as anyone who knows about this topic knows, the UBS and NA texts are not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The UBS and NA texts take into account all the evidence that God has preserved. They are based on 100% of the manuscripts, not 95% (as the MajT text claims), or 5% (as some uninformed critics say), or 8 to 12 (as the TR is).

[quoteThe evidence that the byzantine majority text is the real new testament text, is very great. [/quote]There is no doubt that the MajT has a lot of evidence in its favor. If there were a text made from the Byzantine Majority Text, it would be good. There's not. The KJV is not from the Byzantine Majority Text.

No, there is evidence against various readings from all these manuscripts whether Aleph, B, the Majority or whatever. But as a whole, the method used in producing the NA/UBS texts is by far the superior method of textual criticism.

 

When one rightly divides the Word of Truth one finds that Matthew 24:5 is the signs that the Church Age (Time of the Gentiles, Age of Grace, etc) continues NOT that the Lord is nearer coming in His pretribulation rapture2 (= resurrection1 + rapture1). The Lord is nearer coming though, because time has passed since then - we are closer to the Lord coming to get us then we ever were - for that time is future.

It is no secret what God has done for me.
What has God done for you?

----------------------------------
2 Peter 1:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore, the rather, brethren,
giue diligence to make your calling and election sure:
for if ye doe these things, ye shall neuer fall.

I'm pretty sure that 'calling' here is one's
calling TO CHRIST. But I guess it could
mean one's calling to ministry. I personally believe that
God calls each Christian to serve Him and others
in ministry.

I know I've heard "how can I be called by God?
I'm busy taking care of four children".
Yes, Mam, sounds like the Lord has called you
to spend some 30 years (probably much longer)
ministry of raising children in the nurture of the Lord.

Short history of God's Callings on Ed:

1952 - Called to salvation Rich & Full
--- (It is all about JESUS!)

1958 - Called to teach Bible

1967 - Called to the special witness of
harvesting people for Messiah Jesus whom
others have planted (Yeshua gives the growth
and does the harvesting)

1972 - Called to special ministry
of EDification to those
who are called to the pastoring ministry

1975 - Called to the Deacon Ministry

1984 - Called to special on-line ministry
of EDification to those
who are called to God's ministry

2002 - Called to special on-line ministry
of Edification to the heathen on BB = Baptist Board

(I note I never got uncalled -- maybe
if the Lord Taries I'll get called home
which will uncall me from the other calls?

----------------------------------

BTW, I'm retired from a secular job and so am independently poor & don't need a cent from anybody to minister for God on the internet (in other words, the Lord is done taking care of my needs).

 

The answers to those questions are of no value. The real question is: Are you living for Christ? Another is: Who is living for Jesus Christ because of your life?

A person who is living for Jesus Christ is saved and that issue was settled in the past and he is living for Christ in the present.

 

Well, since you question the salvation of people here, if it were up to me, I'd throw your UFO-watching, brethren-accusing tail off the BB. But since it ain't, I'll just say...

Thanks for displaying your true heart, and your (ahem) vast knowledge.

 

The TR is based off of texts that are from the Byzantine family, but they are not identical.

Obviuosly a better one than you had.

Why do you guys quote and believe these liars? Gipp is an idiot.

That's how Paul described it in 1 Cor 9: Those who preach the gospel should live of hte gospel, just like farmers and soldiers.

I am too. At least you have somewhat of an excuse to believe this nonsense you believe.

[quoteChick said [/quote]don't trust Chick either.

How do you know? You already said you didn't go to Bible college, and you have shown here that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

I would be interested to know what school uses the WH text. I am not aware of any.

Incorrect.

So what? Are you coherent? This has nothing to do with the topic.

[quoteAnswer these questions:
When did you get saved?[/quote]1974

At home in my bed

By trusting Christ.

Because I was a sinner who needed to be saved.

Obviously able to see very well, unlike you. You have bought a lie, like so many others here, and it leads to you attack God's word. It is truly shameful that you let yourself be deceived this way.

 

Quote:
They keep telling the students that the original greek means something other than what the KJV says, but they are tricking the students.

I received the information in regard of which schools supporting the TR texts and supporting WH texts. I have the list of schools.

Quote:
They don't use the textus receptus greek, they are using the Hort Westcott greek revised text.

The lists are TTU, LU, Cedarville University and many colleges.

Quote:
Both strongs and vines concordances are based on the Hort Westcott greek and not the KJV textus receptus greek.

Antiaging is correct. I have them and use them for my Bible study. I found many problems in them because of wrong Greek texts.

 

Give us the complete list. Isn't it kind of an exaggeration for you to make a list of three. Making a list of three is like someone who lives in the middle of the Arizona desert claiming that the nearest little town is a metropolis.

While you are at it, at least give us the names of the professors at some Baptist seminaries who are in violation of what you claim.

 

I cannot speak to Vine's Concordance, since there is no such thing to begin with, and I do not have Vine's Dictionary, but I do have two copies of Strong's Concordance.

However, Strong's (and Young's) Concordance is based on the English Bible, and not on any NT Greek (or OT Hebrew/Aramaic) text, to begin with. There are limited Greek and Hebrew dictionaries/lexicons associated with Strong's Concordance, as well as a comparative Concordance, where the differences in the wording of the RV and/or ASV differ with the KJV, and are delineated.

While there are undoubtedly some problems with Strong's (it makes no claim to be 'perfect'), this that you have put forth, is not one of them.

BTW, there are some differences between the New Strong's Concordance, and the one published by Abingdon, that is some years older. I have one of each.

Ed

 

Good post Ed.
And I can't believe this thread is 40 pages long!