Jesus or God?

I agree! :thumbs:

 

Nor do you have one shred of proof my belief is wrong, Baptist4life. There will be no retraction because I firmly believe the older manuscripts are closer to the originals in both age and accuracy. You want me to lie, Baptist4life. Don't you know it's wrong to entice someone to lie? I'll waste no more time defending my position against your non-Christlike attitude, Baptist4life, but I will pray for you. Have a nice day.

 

Keith M....I'm not sure what your problem is, but asking you to PROVE something you state as FACT, is NOT asking you to LIE! Maybe you have a more serious problem you need to deal with, as I see no reason for the anger you have towards me just because I challenged your OPINION.


I believe YOUR posting something as FACT when you have no proof that it IS FACT, could be considered "lying".



I'll ask the rest of you reading this thread. Do you see what I'm trying to say, or am I guilty of what Keith is accusing me of?

 

I could come on here and state that the NIV is absolutely God's Word for English speaking people, and all the other versions are wrong and shouldn't be trusted. I guarantee you that it wouldn't be long before someone asked me to PROVE my claim. And rightfully so. That's all I've asked you to do Keith, you made the statement that the older manuscripts are more reliable because the newer ones have more mistakes. I'm only asking you for PROOF of your statement.



I NEVER said the older manuscripts WEREN'T more accurate, or that the newer ones WERE more accurate! YOU made the statement, not me. I'm sincerely interested in how you KNOW that what you claim is TRUE as that would help me immensely in deciding which Bible version I want to use.


Assumptions and people's opinions aren't PROOF to me. Again, that's the "catholic" way of reasoning.



" Mary must have been sinless, because Jesus could not have been carried in a "sinful" womb"..................."Mary must have been a perpetual virgin because that just makes sense"..........."Mary must have been ASSUMED into Heaven, because God wouldn't want her to die and be buried"............"Mary never had any other children, because Joseph wouldn't have touched God's vessel"...............

"Older manuscripts must be more accurate, because people make mistakes when copying"..........


Same thing to me. No proof for any of it.

 

When looking up something tangential to this thread I came across the following short exchange of a response and a question between two posters, both of whom shall remain nameless, for this purpose, and I'll add my own comment.

Well, no. Actually, I'm not Jewish, at all - but my boss is! :thumbsup:

Ed

 

Hmmm! I wonder if this would be a good place to note that "Modern Bible translations" (at least in English) are "normally based on" Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as opposed to any manuscripts?

I think that one can actually find a complete translation of Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus) on-line, however, although I have seen no other complete translations of any specific Codices.

I will offer however, that I am still just a wee bit leery of relying too much on the doctrinal creedence of a site that proclaims that "The Millenium is Here!" however, 'cause I somehow missed that memo.

Ed

 

This is an extremely good and highly accurate short post, on this subject. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

I suggest that the 'real truth' lies somewhere in the middle, here.

Out of morbid curiosity. why do the comments, implications, and accusations about someone lying about something or some other poster seem to arise so often on the BB, from all sides? Is this characterization supposed to be edifying, somehow? Not that I am particularly any "holier-than-thou" type, but I have somehow managed to make 8000 posts on the BB, and not one time accused any other BB poster of "lying" about anything (although a couple of times I have suggested that some may have inadvertently repeated some lies of some other non-BB individuals), even if suggesting or intentionally stating that some posters were mistaken or misinformed. I'm fairly certain I could easily find well over two thousand instances of these accusations in my three years on the BB, if I actually took the time to do so, and one cannot even search the BB for the use of the word "lie" as it contains only three letters.

FTR, Baptist4life did not actually start that word, here, but why is it even constantly brought up among Christians? :tear:

One can certainly take a part of a sentence and make it say something the author was not intending, as well. The initial complete statement of Keith M, of which Baptist4life quoted and highlighted a small part (which I will also do), is this.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact, as I have previously noted, that most all English translations for the last 625+ years are based on some text or texts, as opposed to manuscripts (And as usual, only the NT is actually questioned here. Strange, how that OT translations never seem to creep into these discussions, even after the discovery of the DSS!), I would offer that indeed, all usually available Modern Translations (Yes, that even also includes the KJVs we have today, for such notable scholars and textual students as Drs. Parris, Blaney, and Scrivener all had either direct or indirect access to more MSS than did the KJV translators in 1611, and made some needed and proper changes in the KJVs, accordingly.) are based to some degree on MSS older than the MSS that were available to the KJV translators of 1611, who mainly (but not always) relied on the TR1598 of Beza, as the Greek 'authority' in the matter.

Incidentally, I would suggest that every one of us who has ever used any recent vintage KJV (or most any other English Bible) 'owes' a huge debt of gratitude and thanks to such as Drs. Parris, Blaney, and Scrivener (as well as to all the KJV translators), if even not quite as much as is owed to such as Dr. Wycliffe, Messers. Tyndale, and Whittingham and Messers Erasmus, Estienne, Beza, and all their associates, et al., respectively.

Ed

 

Ed, thank you for your reasonable and well thought out responses! :applause:

 

He drives a taxi, he's got plenty of time to think!:wavey:

 

Untrue??? You can't deny my research on gnosticism because I found many answers through many books and the Internet.

 

Wrong?? You can't deny my research on gnosticism through many books and the Internet.

Do not forget that MVs derived from Gnostics-influence manuscripts because you defend the Gnostics' interest.

 

Amen! Preach it!

 

Amen! Preach it!

 

Amen again!

 

The problem is the gap between the originals and older MSS -- 300 years! -- too far!