MIS-information Is Ancient History

Like I said Bob,you have been programmed well..

 

Compliment translated
into English:

As I mentioned before, Brother Dr. Bob, you
have self-trained yourself well.

 

They do!!! It is in plain English.

And so is the marginal note in the REAL KJV, which reads, "or, O day starre". And so is Revelation 2:28-"and I will give him the MORNING STAR." It took an otherwise-clueless Onlyist to have made up that "substitution" bunk.

They do!!! When they go bankrupt,they either make it public domain,or $ell it to be re-ha$hed(ESV,for example).

Know anyone who prints the KJV large-scale & then gives it away free? The Gideons pay for every Bible they pass out. Someone somewhere has paid a printer for EVERY copy of the KJV commercially made. And have you ever stopped to think that the copyrights ensure you're getting the genuine article and not a copy that may have been tampered with?

They do in fact;compare any of the 200+ conflicting authorites to the word of God(KJB);only a fool would deny that.

I HAVE compared fourteen versions, while I doubt if you've even compared TWO completely. For instance, in both the KJV and the NIV, we see that Colossians 1:14 is a quote of Ephesians 1:7, and that the KJV ADDS the word "even" to that verse. The mss from which the NIV was made do NOT have "through his blood" in Colossians, while they DO at Ephesians. However, this is the ONLY instance in which an NIV verse does not contain the mention of Jesus' blood when compared with other versions. And the KJVO cannot prove this phrase wasn't ADDED in the mss to Colossians.

A little aside-The NIV uses the name Jesus MANY MORE TIMES than does the KJV. Proof? Look through any exhaustive concordance of both the KJV & the NIV & count the # of times Jesus' name appears in each.

They are!!! Made from the most vile,corrupt texts that ever was scraped out of a dumpster(Sinaiticus),and the RCC's OFFICIALmanuscript,Vaticanus(Revelation 17).

First, the "dumpster" theory is erroneous. Here's a URL of the words of Tischendorf himself.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html

Something that simply doesn't occur to the closed mind of the Onlyist: Was it not GOD'S POWER that kept Sinaiticus from being burned? If God were against it, it would never have lasted long enough fot Tischendorf to have found it. Often, the Onlyists ignore the POWER OF GOD to have preserved and presented His word AS HE CHOSE.

No arguments there...

...at least from YOU. However, many SCHOLARS disagree. The modern opinion of W&H, widespread among KJVOs, has come from two sources-first, the book,"Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", by SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST leader Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson-and then, from G.A.(God And)Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions",a book well-proven full of errors by KJVO advocate & author David Cloud. From these two very dubious sources come almost all the other articles & books blasting W&H. I invite you to do the research yourself.

No,he wasn't.

Yet, many Onlyists consider him their darling, the man who originated KJVO. I doube that one in a hundred of them have actually read his book,"Revision Revised", all the way through, or read any of his other books completely, to see that he actually stated that the Textus Receptus was in need of a drastic revision.

Yep,and why not!?? Satan did it(Gen 3;Luke 4:10)and good ole' Baalam did too(Numbers 22:12-13),and Jehudi did not think that those fire bound verses were originaly in the "original",so to clear up what God "REALLY" should have said,he broke out the penknife.(Father of textual criticism I suppose).

Can YOU prove that words that the Onlyists say were OMITTED from some MVs were not actually ADDED to the mss from which the KJV was made? We KNOW beyond any doubt that the KJV itself has words ADDED, and that the translators used "dynamic equivalence" many times.

And here's yet MORE onlyist stupidity: their supposition that Satan left out some of God's words in Gen.3. Actually, it's EVE who quotes what God said, while Satan denies the words are TRUE. Not a thing concerning the forbidden fruit was left out. Satan DENIED THE TRUTH of God's words. He didn't quote God at all here.

Yup!!! If the KJB is not it,then what did the poor suckers do for the word of God until 1881??

This is total evasion of the original Onlyist stupidity by you, plus a prime example of your use of the great KJVO double standard. First, you argue that Ps. 12:6-7 are about preservation, which means that God has preserved His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS, after He first presented it.(Yes, I realize David had only those Scriptures presented before his time, such as the Pentateuch & Judges.) Now, once God had finished presenting His word directly, then He preserved all of it from that time onward, right? It's well-known that He first presented it written in the English of its time in the 600's AD when men wrote the NT as sung by the traveling bard Caedmon-and that Alfred The Great translated the Gospels and some other of the NT in the 900s AD-and that Tyndale(his work finished by Coverdale) translated the first complete English version made from the ancient mss. Every BV made from that time till now has differed from any other version, and of the 5000- + Scriptural mss now known, no two are exactly alike.

I,too, believe God has preserved His word, and that He presents it in the various languages as He chooses, even though I don't believe the Ps.12 hooey. And I believe that, before 1611, God presented His word in English AS HE CHOSE, that He did so in 1611, & that He continues to do so today. If you don't believe the earlier English versions came out ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL, then you either don't believe in His preservation, or you don't believe that whatever He does is perfect the first time, every time. You would also believe that He cannot change His own word any more as He chooses, although you freely acknowledge that He added a lot more to His words to Jeremiah after Jehoiakim burned the first copy. So, which is it? Did God preserve His word or not, IYO? Or, did He make mistakes, taking at least eight versions of His word before He finally "got it right"? OR, did He cause each valid version of His word to be written EXACTLY AS HE HAD CHOSEN for that perticular time, place, and language style?

But He set them straight as to who His Father was;big F,not lower case...

ONCE AGAIN, YOU AVOID THE PREMISE COMPLETELY!!! You know FULL WELL that your man Terry Watkins & several other KJVO authors have said what I wrote above, that the NIV dishonored jesus by calling Joseph His father. Saddam should've employed you to teach some tips about EVASION! Joseph and Mary knew FULL WELL who Jesus' actual Father is! What they DIDN'T know was what His exact mission was, but Mary slowly learned. For example, she told the servants at the wedding feast that ran out of wine to do anything He said to do. You just don't wanna acknowledge that many of your sources of material for the Onlyist myth were about as wise as lug nuts in this case.

Who cares what some men said?? I tell you who does,men pleasers do;I know what the Bible(KJB) says.

So you don't care what the VERY MEN WHO WROTE THE KJV SAID??????? The marginal note to which I referred was placed in the AV 1611 by those very men! It's been left out in subsequent revisions. This is more of the great KJVO double standard at work-believing the very translators of the AV 1611 ONLY when it suits their myth!

It does!!! Can you prove it doesn't??

Yes, very simply. The mss existed before the AV did, and the AV is but a translation of these mss, as are all other versions in every language used today. Even the Greek is different in style from modern Greek.

Have a look at this LINK

Know what NONSENSE means? Most likely, Luke would REALLY say, "None of these represents my EXACT WORDS." Neither the Gipper, Jack Chick, nor you know what Luke's EXACT WORDS were. You KNOW the KJV changed his word in Acts 12:4 where it reads, "Easter".

And sure, the apostle Paul used an ENGLISH Bible, made some 1550 years after his death.

Well,we will see real soon when 2 Corinthians 5:10 happens....I'm ready.. </font>[/QUOTE] And for any of us, that event is no further away than THE NEXT HEARTBEAT. Do you EVER stop to think that Jesus may ask you, "Why did you work against My word? Can't I present it as I choose? After all, I AM THE WORD. SHAME on you!!"

I hope that before that event comes to pass for you, that you'll see that the whole KJVO myth and those who advocate it are three fries short of a Happy Meal, completely unable to prove even the least sentence of its codwallop.

[ December 19, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: robycop3 ]

 

If Dr. Bob has been programmed, what about YOU??

Dr. Bob does NOT chant the same mantras over & over as many of you KJVOs do. And YOUR KJVO stuff has been universally proven wrong. Have you proven Dr.Bob wrong? Nope! On the contrary, you've proven him RIGHT, at least in this thread, by your support of some of the oldest and most idiotic of the KJVO assertions, by simply repeating what those unlearned people said some 30 years ago or longer. He said that those old false assertions came up like bad pennies every so often, and you've once again defended them, in vain, as usual.

 

I hate to take issue with Pliny but the most ignorant man may be the one who knows little and knows not that he does not know. In other words, an ignorant man who knows how little he knows may be in better shape than the guy who knows a little but thinks that he knows more.

Have you noticed how the supporters of the modern critical text generally choose the Ruckman crowd as their opponents. Of course, the Ruckman follies are easy to refute. Anyone could do it. The Ruckman position is nonsense and not worth refuting.

However, let's talk about the W-H follies. The W-H theory underlying most of the modern critical text is pure hogwash as far as scientific methodology is concerned. The W-H textual theories were of the age and type of follies as the phlogenetic recapitulation theory, the redactor theories, Piltdown Man, colonic irrigation and a host of other spurious ideas masquerading as scientific enlightment. Don't believe everything you hear even in Bible college.

The modern critical text is a statistical bastard that has never existed heretofore. It is comparable to the statistically average American family with 2 1/2 children, $62,361.12 annual income, a 2 3/4 bedroom house in the burbs, etc. It is the statistical average but no family like it exists. The same is true of the statistical text (i.e. the modern critical text). In other words, we have probabilities regarding words but the whole text ain't like the originals. We have no way of knowing whether we are closer or farther from the text of the originals. It all hinges upon many slippery presuppositions; there is nothing axiomatic here. There is no historical mandate either. Textual criticism is a child of its time. Since evolutionary thinking (historically, economically, socially, etc.)
was the rage of the age, an evolutionary development of the text was assumed in textual criticism with age of the manuscript determining its importance. There are many problems with this assumption.

In sum, the textual critical methods do NOT meet the rigorous standards of true scientific methodology. I would rather trust the historically received texts of the believing church instead of the quasi-scientific machinations of unbelievers and heretics. Textual criticism ranks with the quasi-scientific study of the paranormal. It ain't science and it ain't true.

Would you care to debate this? I assume you are fairly conversant with rigorous scientific methods of research. Since I know a little of science (microbiology, biochemistry), theology, languages (Hope I can find my copy of old W-H's book on their text), and research design, I think that I would enjoy opening up this can of worms.

As an aside, old Pliny's take on the ostrich has become a cultural myth. What does it matter that it ain't true? It makes for an understood and accepted metaphor.

 

Let me ask just one question, which I feel is within this thread:

If four honest, intelligent witnesses to the same traffic accident were to write accounts of what they saw for Officer Doe, and these accounts were passed down through generations of police for some 2K years, what criteria would be used to determine which one is the most correct 2K years after the fact? All the physical evidence has long-vanished, and all they would have about Officer Doe is the fact, from old police rosters, that he existed.

The factor NOT in that scenario is THE POWER OF GOD, which IS in the Scriptural mss issue. Therefore, pure science alone won't work with the mss question.

 

That is what we are trying to figure out from you guys ...

This is extreme hyperbole, but does make us wonder about your consistency given the above statement.

It's nonsense ...

 

In sum, the textual critical methods do NOT meet the rigorous standards of true scientific methodology. I would rather trust the historically received texts of the believing church instead of the quasi-scientific machinations of unbelievers and heretics. Textual criticism ranks with the quasi-scientific study of the paranormal. It ain't science and it ain't true.

Amen!

 

That is what we are trying to figure out from you guys ...

This is extreme hyperbole, but does make us wonder about your consistency given the above statement.

</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor, either you need to lighten up or I need a few more years in clown college... or both

 

On the contrary, the WH theory is a brilliant achievement even though new MS discoveries and methodological developments mean it can no longer be maintained in its original form.

Moises Silva used the following example to illustrate how it is that a reconstructed text can match the lost original without agreeing with any extant copy.

(1) While attending a lecture on NT textual criticism, a proposed solution to a TC problem occurs to Silva. He writes it down in a brief paragraph (The Original).

(2) A colleague reads it and likes it, so he makes his own copy (Copy 1) accidentally leaving out the definite article in the first sentence of the original.

(3) Yet another colleague makes a copy (Copy 2) of The Original, coincidentally leaving out the same definite article.

(4) A British colleague also makes a copy (Copy 3) which is exactly like The Original except for changing the words ending in -or to the British spelling -our.

(5) Another colleague makes a copy (Copy 4) which again is identical to The Original except for correcting a Spanish idiom in English to the proper English idiom (Silva himself is Spanish).

(6) Two months later, another colleague reads Copy 2 and makes his own copy (Copy 5) with a few other "scribal changes." He instructs the students in his class to make their own copies (Copies 6 through 35) and to be sure to make careful copies because they will have to memorize them.

(7) Within a year, Silva's solution becomes widely accepted, and Bruce Metzger contacts Silva for The Original so he can print it in an upcoming book. But The Original is lost, and survives only in Copies 1 through 35. Metzger gathers up the copies, and applies text critical principles to them. He dismisses the Majority Text (Copies 5 through 35) because he can't find it in the earliest stages, recognizes that the omission of the definite article in the first sentence of Copies 1 and 2 is a scribal error, and recognizes that the British spellings in Copy 3 and the correction of the English idiom in Copy 4 are recensional changes. He finally produces a Reconstructed Critical Text which is not found in *any* of the extant copies -- yet Metzger's Critical Text is identical to The Original.

 

On the contrary, the WH theory is a brilliant achievement even though new MS discoveries and methodological developments mean it can no longer be maintained in its original form.

Archangel, we are talking about scientific methodology versus hocus pocus scholarship. There too many uncontrolled variables. It is pure hypothesis and conjecture without any way of verification. It is much like reconstructing a man's facial features from a few skull fragments. Of course, there is no one around to disprove it if the skull is a few thousands of years old. In textual criticism, there are no parameters that can be measured and empirically verified. It's not about the discovery of new manuscripts; it's that the whole paradigm is flawed. In a scientific sense, the whole of textual criticism belongs to the age and temperment of phrenology, colonic irrigation, and philosophic Darwinism. It was spawned from the same intellectual ancestor as higher criticism.

If this is a brilliant achievement, where is the empirical evidence to verify it? The whole W-H theory is not valid (If you understand what I mean by "valid" in the sense of research methodology). Please establish the validity of the W-H text theory before making generalizations. The burden of proof, as it is regarding any hypothesis, is on the shoulders of the W-H proponents.

</font>[/QUOTE]A neat, beautiful little story but it ain't reality. From your telling of this story, I quickly deduce the following problems deviating considerably from the textual criticism of the NT:
1. All 35 copies are extant.
2. There is a known history and transmission of the copies.
3. The errors are based on known language principles in current usage and may be reasoned from knowing the background of the copyists.
4. There were really only 5 permutations or I should say 5 levels at which permutations occurred.
5. This was not a controlled scientific experiment with control of the variables.
6. If the original was lost, how does Metzger or Silva know that it is identical?

BTW, this sounds like a nice little apocryphal story from the W-H guys. It really doesn't address the scientific question at all. Could you please provide references for documentation. I would like to see it in the original.

 

Okay, then define your historiography. That determines your history. Are you positing that the "Greek Text" has been corrupted in transmission? Even though there are variations, would you not agree that we have a reasonable intact body of Scripture in the Majority Text tradition--both western and eastern (Byzantine)?

Do you think that 1 Cor. 4:1-2 in any way suggests the idea of the believing church being the custodians of God's Word? If so, do we not have a trustworthy Scripture accepted for centuries by the church?

Your move.

 

The WH textual theory has several interconnected parts. Perhaps we could begin with one part, the claim that no evidence for the existence of the Byzantine text exists prior to the 4th C. The empirical evidence is simply this: no extant Greek, versional, or patristic source prior to the 4th C. has an overall Byzantine text. Certainly there are some distinctively Byzantine *readings* earlier than the 4th C. (WH were wrong on this point), but there are no pre-4th C. sources which have a Byzantine *text* (i.e., a text with a high proportion of Byzantine readings found together in a single document).

Of course not. The situation with the text of the NT is *far* more complicated. But the story's sole purpose is to provide a hypothetical demonstration of how a reconstructed text can be identical with the original while at the same time being different from every known extant copy.

Certainly. It's found in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, David Alan Black, ed. (USA: Baker, 2002), pp. 146-148.

 

I am curious where you got the material by Moises Silva. I have read some of his books and hadn't heard this before.

 

First, this is (as complicated as it is) is an oversimplification of what happened historically.

Second, we are talking about the Word of God.
Somehow in all of this God must enter into the equation.

Not in terms of "re-inspiration" but in the guardianship of the Traditional Text of the Apostolic Churches of Asia Minor and Europe (to whom the NT Scripture was written (Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, etc) not just for the admonition of the saints but safe-keeping as the depository of truth, of the Word of God given to the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 3:15
...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

2 Peter 3:1
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:


HankD

 

HankD,

Why do you prefer the Scrivener TR? Do you think there's anything special about the KJV over the modern MT?

Regards,
Tim