Older = Better?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Feb 23, 2004.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/kjv7.html
     
  2. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Readings VS the Texts! You notice the difference between them reflecting manuscript evidences.
     
  3. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The older = Better? The CT men prefer the Texts; the TR men prefer the Readings. That's their argument upon the manuscript evidences.
     
  4. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the MISSING point that most CT men get? Just 300 years between the original texts and 2 favorite MSS: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. How did they receive the inspired Word of God from the original texts in 300 years later? That's the CT men's impossibility.
     
  5. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    If memory serves, the whole idea is to compare manuscripts with different lines of descent.
    So if the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Bezae agree everything is fine and dandy, if they disagree the fighting starts about which one has the wrong turn of phrase and why.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The KJVO neglects the fact that God apparently chose to not preserve the very first human writings of any of His word. Their existence would once and for all lay to rest the mss issues, even though there would still be debate over the correct translations of some words or phrases.

    The mss debate has been going on for over a hundred years, & it's not gonna be solved in one day. In the meantime this false KJVO myth has been invented by some booksellers and foisted upon some unsuspecting Christians. It's the duty of we who know better to show the world that the KJVO myth is false.
     
  7. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cranston, if anyone else said what you just did, I couldn't believe they said that!

    You have just made it out that the Lord is the instigator of strife and contention over His Word!

    What was written in the originals is preserved in later MSS. The website Ladyeagle proposed is onyl further proof our KJB is the accurate Word of God perfectly preserved to this very day.

    The "arguement" all began a bout 130 years ago when two linguists re-invented a method of testual criticism that "ONLY" mv proponents accept.

    If it all boiled down to this, I would take the word of 47 translators over the word of two "re-translators" ANYDAY!

    As far as I am concerned there is no "debate", but ample oportunity to PROCLAIM! the Word of God is PRESERVED in our AV 1611 KJB.
     
  8. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts,

    Do you really use an AV 1611 KJB?

    Dan
     
  9. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Dan, I do, along with my three 1762 Cambridge Editons, two what Ed would call 1769/Blayney, my wife's "Sure Word" Old Scofield notes, Online Millennium Editon 1.40 with multitudes of references and Bibles galore, plus what is readily available on the internet at times. Why?

    Is it the "spelling" and the "print" issue? I don't consider it much of an issue, I am fascinated at the Germanic typeface and the art work involved in it's design. I remeber when I first realised the long "s" which sometimes appears as an "f". I didn't find it confusing, I found it to incite me to dig deeper into the reason for it's appearance and found much about the history of print.

    Gutenburg was a German. He invented and made the typeface we see nearly all earliest printings of any books or documents from the 1500's forward until the Romanesque typeface was adopted as the norm. Gutenburg was the first to print Bibles and distribute them, that is why we have the 1611 in that typeface. To the unfamiliar it is hard to read at first. I like it because it draws closer attention to the words. I have stated before that we live in the day of "processing" information at astronomical speeds and accuracy, but we don't seem to be learning anymore, except how to process info faster. I believe this is just the more evidence of man's demise according and due to his ever-learning, but yet overlooking the basics and even the simplest observable doctrines in his process. That is what is become sad in the area of literature and God's Word, it seems to be fallen into the hands of men and snatched away from God and True Reason.

    Brother Ricky
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    I believe there would be no debate with this statement from anyone here except to say that the AV 1611 went though several revisions (as any translation) to clean up the human errors in translation, printing, spelling and just plain blunders, removal of the Apocrypha, Saint's day calendar, "scripture" reading guide (with apocryphal readings) starting in 1613.

    Other Bibles in which God's Word has been translated and preserved in English have had similar histories.

    HankD
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    How do you know this? Perhaps He did & they haven't been discovered yet. Perhaps they will be discovered & put all this bickering to rest.

    Until then....carry on. (sigh)
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Originally posted by Precepts:
    Cranston, if anyone else said what you just did, I couldn't believe they said that!


    Big deal. You generally don't believe anything any non-KJVO says anyway.

    You have just made it out that the Lord is the instigator of strife and contention over His Word!

    Then, please show us an "original".

    What was written in the originals is preserved in later MSS. The website Ladyeagle proposed is onyl further proof our KJB is the accurate Word of God perfectly preserved to this very day.

    No, it isn't. It's merely old propaganda. For every scholar who holds the view on that site, there's one who holds the opposite view. You know that, & you know that the rest of us know that, so why be dishonest about it?

    The "arguement" all began a bout 130 years ago when two linguists re-invented a method of testual criticism that "ONLY" mv proponents accept.

    ONLY after many other scholars of the day were ignoring the thousands of other mss that'd been discovered since the Textus Receptus had been written.

    If it all boiled down to this, I would take the word of 47 translators over the word of two "re-translators" ANYDAY!

    Despite the fact that most of the mss available today weren't available to them? Despite the fact that their theology was that of a church that was largely RCC in its doctrines, including baby-sprinkling?

    As far as I am concerned there is no "debate", but ample oportunity to PROCLAIM! the Word of God is PRESERVED in our AV 1611 KJB.

    Then, why do you claim to use a 1762 edition?

    And again, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY are you KJVO? And BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you tell me I should be?
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    How do you know this? Perhaps He did & they haven't been discovered yet. Perhaps they will be discovered & put all this bickering to rest.

    Until then....carry on. (sigh)
    </font>[/QUOTE]I would be most excited if ANY of them were discovered. Since they were written over a period of at least 1500 years, I don't expect any en-masse discovery to be found. Yes, I'm more interested in the TRUTH than in "winning" any bickering session. But so far, the Onlyists have presented ZERO evidence that could raise their doctrine from "myth" status. Thus, we have proper grounds from which to bicker.

    I recall reading somewhere that some writings of a Baruch who was a contemporary of Jeremiah had been found, but they were of a mundane nature & not Scripture. Whether this was written by "the" Baruch who was Jeremiah's scribe is unknown since Baruch was a common Jewish surname, but it DOES prove that some original Jewish writings from long ago have survived.

    But if certain mss are corrupt, why would God allow them to have survived for so long? Why did He not allow Sinaiticus to have been burnt long before Tischendorf happened upon it? And what made Tischendorf decide to go to this exact palce?
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will you please tell me where I have ever said you HAVE to be KJVO? In fact I have and still do maintain your exclusive right to have any translation you see fit, but that will never keep me from proclaiming the AV 1611 KJB as the right Bible, if that offends you like you continue to carry on I am sorry it does.

    I don't have time to look right now but I do hope you answered my question about the 1762.

    The 1762 Cambridge is nothing more than the Edition 1762 of the actual 1611. You know that, and you know exactly why.

    What really puzzles me is why you go off the deep end when some one simply proclaims the KJB as the Word of God they stand on? You think KJVO's look fanatical, look in the mirror.

    One quick think Cranston, I hope we can continue with our discussions w/o getting all flustered and standoffish towards one another. I told you before I like you, I just can't get over that name though, but that's just a quirk about me, no offence, O.K.?

    If it helps matters any, my middle name is Bradley, y'know, like the tank. ;) [​IMG]
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Precepts: "Will you please tell me where I have ever said you HAVE to be KJVO? In fact I have and still do maintain your exclusive right to have any translation you see fit, but that will never keep me from proclaiming the AV 1611 KJB as the right Bible, if that offends you like you continue to carry on I am sorry it does.

    First-I don't say the KJV is not the "right" Bible, but it sure isn't the ONLY "right English Bible.

    Next, the 1762 or 1769 is NOT the 1611. YOU know that. Even Waite pointed out the differences. No amount of spin is gonna make one into the other.

    Next, I'm not so much offended as I am zealous against a doctrine I KNOW is false. That doctrine is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. This has been PROVEN false repeatedly, but some people just refuse to see.

    Finally, I see you just won't answer the "authority" question. No KJVO will answer it straight on. Why? because the correct answer means the end of their myth. But let me rephrase it-BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do you proclaim the AV 1611 is "the" right Bible in English and that no other version is?
     

Share This Page

Loading...