1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV and the modern versions

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by antiaging, Oct 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 18 of 20
  1. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it is not.

    First, compare the 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV at John 16:25; you will notice a "but" which was not there in the original 1611 KJV. In 1604-1611, the Bishops' Bible had not "but" but the Geneva Bible did. The 1611 KJV retained the Bishops' Bible reading here. This reading was retained in the 1638 KJV. Eventually, "but" was added to the KJV as we now see it.

    Why the difference. The printed Greek texts vary. Greek texts from Erasmus had no equivalent for "but" while the influential Greek texts from Stephanus did. So, the KJV has undergone change in underlying source Greek text.

    Second, compare Acts 2:38 in the 1611 KJV and 1769 KJV. You would notice a comma in the 1611 KJV which is not present in the 1769 KJV. Those commas functioned like modern hyphens for the clause about baptism. The 1769 KJV is what made that change -- one man, Benjamin Blayney, struck the second comma. Therefore, the 1769 KJV makes baptism appear to be a cause for salvation. From this, the error of `salvation upon baptism' burst onto the English-reading church in the early 1800's. That comma mattered.

    The 1769 KJV is not "the same version as the original 1611; just an upgraded edition" because there were changes more substantial than what you report.
     
    #341 Darron Steele, Oct 21, 2008
  2. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Do you mean to tell me that the KJV "update" caused a change in doctrine? :eek:

    Isn't this what KJVO's accuse the MV's of doing? What a double standard!
     
    #342 Amy.G, Oct 21, 2008
  3. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever happened to "things that are different are not the same?"
     
    #343 rbell, Oct 21, 2008
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Did you know that Erasmus would not put the Comma Johanneum in his translation that would become the TR? At the time of his translation, the verse could only be found in the Latin Vulgate so in his first two editions of his work, he did not include it. After protestings by others, he challenged them to find one manuscript with the verse in it - and the manuscript that was given to him is a highly suspect Irish since it came from a monestary who's head was an old enemy of Erasmus. Today there are 8 MSS that include the Comma and half of those include it in the margin and not in the text. It is not quoted by any of the early church fathers

    Actually, surprisingly, Wiki has a good handle on the verse and it's history.
     
    #344 annsni, Oct 21, 2008
  5. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a lot of people will not accept is that minority readings are not majority text readings. For instance, the insertion at 1 John 5:7-8 is in the text of less than a half-dozen manuscripts.

    Further, the VARYING editions of the so-called "Textus Receptus" are different from the majority text. The Stephanus texts differ from the Erasmus texts, for instance. One difference is reflected in the variant described above at John 16:25 between the 1769 KJV and the 1611 KJV.

    Oh, and the 1611 KJV did not translate a single Greek text. The Greek text underlying the KJV was first put in a single volume through the efforts of F. H. A. Scrivener in the late 1800's. As he reports, the closest printed Greek text to the KJV was Beza 1598 with around 190 differences.

    Many readings in the VARYING editions of the so-called "Textus Receptus" have readings that are against the combined testimony of both:
    a) the ancient manuscripts, and
    b) the majority of manuscripts.
     
    #345 Darron Steele, Oct 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2008
  6. antiaging

    antiaging New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article at this website will explain in detail why the KJV we have today is just another edition of the KJV of 1611. It is not another version, and it is not a revision.
    http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm
    The modern versions are revisions and other versions, mixing in other texts from other sources.

    Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

    Antioch in Syria became the base of Christianity after AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. The real original accurate copies of the New testament scriptures were sent out with missionaries in all directions from Antioch. They were copied and recopied word for word, as the parchiaments got old, and handed down to the next generation. They were translated into other languages in the lands where they were sent. Some of the copies remained in the original Greek. These are the accurate copies of the the original writings of the Apostles and they agree together. 1John 5:7 can be found in MANY of the accurate copies translated into other languages and a few greek copies also. The other deleted scriptures, that were deleted or changed are also in these accurate copies; thes copies are called the byzantine majority text from which the textus receptus was taken.
    [Overall, the copies having 1Jn5:7 are about 20 to 1 more numerous than the ones that don't. They may be fewer in the Greek, but more numerous when you take into account the translations into other languages.]
    Radiating out from Alexandria Egypt, you find the corrupted copies that have deleted many words, phrases and made changes where doctrine is important.
    5 main manuscripts come from there, they disagree with the accurate copies from Antioch and disagree with each other in many places.
    As you get closer to Alexandria, the climate becomes more arid. This allows manuscripts to last longer around Alexandria. So the corrupted copies that were altered by the gnostics in Alexandria, did not need to be recopied so often.
    In the other areas where the accurate copies were, the climate caused the accurate copies of the majority text to be recopied much more often, because the parchiaments would deteriorate faster. So centuries later, when men started looking for manuscripts, they find the oldest parchiaments have the corrupted text from Alexandria, and the accurate majority text in other lands is on more recent parchiaments, because it had to be recopied much more often.
    But, because the base of the Christians was in Antioch, it is the majority text that must be the accurate copies of the original writings even though they are on younger parchiaments, because this text radiates out in all directions from Antioch.
    So, the oldest parchiaments don't have the oldest text.
    The Alexnandrian text, which deleted 1Jn5:7 and other deletions and changes, came about 2 centuries later than the majority text from Antioch.
    Abundant evidence is found that gnostics had a major school in Alexandria, and that they were forging and altering texts.

    http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/search.html

    At that website is a KJV bible search engine. The scriptures presented have some words in brackets. Those words needed to be added to make proper sentence structure in English, when you translate from Greek. The words that are not in brackets is what was on the Greek manuscripts of the textus receptus majority text.
    Example: Hebrew does not have the article "a" in the language. In Hebrew, if a man saw a duck, he would say, I saw duck. To translate that into English, for proper sentence structure the article "a" must be added, so in English it becomes I saw a duck.
    Since words like this must be added for proper sentence structure it is up to the translators to decide what must be added to make good english and also preserve the real meaning of the verse. Viewing the verse in context is very important to do this correctly. That is where translations like the Tyndale, Luther and KJV may differ. Because you can say the same thing using different words.
    Example:
    Jane went to school.
    Jane left her house and arrived at school.
    Jane traveled to school.
    These all say the same thing using different words.
    Your conscern about the word but, is unfounded if it does not significantly change the meaning of the scripture.
    The KJV we have now is a 1769 edition of the original 1611 version.
    If it means the same thing, for all practical purposes it is the same thing, even if different words are used.
    Word for Word can only be done in the same language. When translating to other languages additions must be done for proper sentence structure in that language.
    Careful care must be taken to make sure the context meaning of the verse stays the same in the translation.
    Since the majority text was translated into many different languages, I suppose slight changes or words added must have been necessary in those languages for proper sentence structure. But if the meaning of the verses stays the same then the copies still all agree.
     
    #346 antiaging, Oct 23, 2008
  7. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. Thanks for making such a great argument for these valid modern versions. Glad to see you're making progress.
     
    #347 rbell, Oct 23, 2008
  8. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps so -- but as I showed above, the 1611 KJV and 1769 KJV have substantial differences.

    One difference I showed was in source Greek text. The other is in how the passage would be understood. These are bases on which more accurate translations into English are objected to. It is not consistent to attack anything that differs from the 1611 KJV and accept the 1769 KJV.
    As I told you earlier, the people who `feed you the funny Kool-Aid' ignore these very relevant facts:
    1) not all the ancient manuscripts come from Egypt -- let alone Alexandria,
    2) the ancient manuscripts contain readings unfavorable to Gnostics,
    3) the Gnostics made their own `scriptures' and did not pay much attention to Christian Scripture,
    4) no one knows who made the ancient manuscripts.

    Codices Vaticanus, Ephraemi, and Bezae were found in Europe; all speculations aside, they probably originated there. Codex Sinaiticus was found in the Sinai Peninsula with notes in it about having been farther north; it probably originated farther north in Asia.

    As for the ancient papyri found in Egypt from c. 100, the second century, and third century, well, there are dozens. Are you going to allege that every single one of them was made by a Gnostic?

    I think I will just accept the evidence: the surviving ancient manuscripts from all over the early Christian world are artifacts which simply reflect the forms of text most common at that time.
     
    #348 Darron Steele, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Said question (and/or "normal" rules) do not apply when discussing the KJV. [You gotta' get this right here, so maybe I can help you out. (Which way did you come in, BTW??) ;) ])

    Here are a dozen (but certainly not all) of the 'Ground Rules.' :rolleyes:

    Rule # 1.) The KJV is always correct.

    (BTW, this rule takes precedence and 'trumps' every other rule, hereinafter given.)

    Rule # 2.) When the KJV(s) are shown to have incorrectly translated a word or phrase, refer back to Rule # 1.

    Rule # 3.) Things that are different can still be the same, when applied to the KJV.

    For an example, note the difference between the wording of I Jo. 5:12 in the 1611 edition, and that of the 1769 edition, or that of Tit. 1:11, below.

    Rule # 4.) Things that are the same are still different, where any edition of the KJV is compared to any other (English) version.

    Rule # 5.) God providentially and supernaturally guided the KJV translators in each and every word they used in their rendition(s), so that no 'improvement' was ever needed, as it is/was without 'error' in every aspect. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those who actually printed the various editions, no doubt because they did it "for filthie lucres sake" which is exactly the same as "for filthy lucre's sake", despite the difference here in form, for those who have not yet understood. Here, refer back to Rules # 1 & #3.

    Rule # 6.) The KJV is translated from the pure text(s) used by the non-Catholic church for almost 1600 years.

    The facts that the KJV is not translated from any single text, that the KJV is specifically directed to be an update of the Bishop's Bible, and that the majority of the KJV is really an update of that of Messers Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, et al., does not affect this, in any manner.

    Rule # 7.) The KJV is from the English tradition of translating into the common language, from the pure original text. This wasbegun by Wycliffe more than 2 1/4 Centuries prior to the KJV, and continued by Tyndale, Rogers, Whittingham, etc..

    The fact that Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate of the Catholic church, and not the Hebrew and Greek is not here relevant, you do understand. Neither is the fact that King James I objected primarily to the work of Whittingham, via the Geneva Bible, of any consequence, either.

    Rule # 8.) The KJV NT is from the 'pure' Majority text, a.k.a. the "Received Text" or Textus Receptus.

    The fact that, according to Hodges & Farstad, et al., as well as Robinson & Pierpont, et al., the MT differs from the 'chosen' TR in 1800 instances (with 1000 affecting translation) is irrelevant to this rule. Neither does the fact that the team headed by Hodges and Farstad had available >400 different Greek manuscripts with which to compare (and did), vs. the relative handful available to Erasmus, Colineaus, Estienne, et al., either.

    Rule # 8.) Modern day versions are all done and printed primarily for money (the reason why they are copyrighted), while the KJV is printed for much higher motives.

    Rule # 8a.) Corollary (a.) to Rule # 8: The fact that a few modern versions, such as the WEB, RNKJV and TFB are entirely 'free' and available only on-line, does not change this 'rule'. (Rule # 1, again.)

    Rule # 8b.) Corollary (b.) to Rule # 8(b): The fact that the NKJV (owned by greedy 'profit-driven' Nelson) has lately consistently ranked as #2 in number of Bibles sold, while only #4 in sales dollars, while the KJVs published by altruistic publishers, have ranked as #4 in numbers while #2 in sales dollars, is irrelevant, as we are talking about the KJV. Once again, Rule # 1!

    Rule # 9.) The KJV was 'edited' and 'updated' for spelling changes, etc., as needed, culminating with the Parris (Cambridge) editon of 1762, and the Blaney (Oxford) edition of 1769. Very minor 'editing' is/was still permitted until that of Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, whose own 1873 Oxford edition of must be entirely discounted, as he also took a major role in the translating of the R. V. This, discounting of the Cambridge 1873 does not affect the 'reverse engineered' TR1894 of Dr. Scrivener in his attempt to show the exact Greek NT text used by the KJV translators, FTR!

    Rule # 10.) Any 'Modern' further 'updates'?, editions, and/or 'versions', such as the YLT, KJ II, NKJV, KJIII, KJ21, LITV, MKJV, AKJV, etc. are not permitted!

    Rule # 11.) The KJV is the Bible that Baptists should embrace, without any real question. (Rule # 1, yet again!)

    Nevermind the fact that no Baptists were included among the KJV translators or were permitted to work on, or participate in the KJV, or the fact that that the greatest percentage of Baptists who ever participated in any major 'standard' translation, were the translators of the NKJV, which happens to be the most "Baptist" of any major version (and which was, in fact, done from the same Textual basis, as the KJV, BTW), or the fact that the HCSB is entirely 'owned' by, controlled by, and was done by the largest Baptist group in the world, namely the Southern Baptist Convention, while the KJV was done at the behest of the Anglican church.

    Rule # 12.) The KJV can be altered to remove the marginal and footnotes of the translators, spelling can be 'standardized', and the entire Apocrypha can be removed from the1611 edition, without it affecting anything, because it is after all, still the KJV!

    The actual words of the Translators in the preface, are not relevant, as they did not still fully 'get it', you see!

    I'm still left wondering who died, and somehow this made Dr. Blaney foolproof, but I digress?

    Incidentally, I have, in over 40 years, actually laid eyes on, and actually touched fewer than 10 Bibles that were actually printed prior to 1900, and most of those were 'church' lecturn Bibles, at that. Some of my family actually own one of those, which I may yet live to inherit, for a time, if the Lord tarries. (That one weighs at least 40# or so.)

    Hope I have helped you understand all of this, just a little bit, anyway! :)

    Ed

    P.S. I almost forgot one more thing.

    It is fully permissible for one who has never so much as laid eyes on any actual 1611 KJV Bible to claim they are quoting and defending it, from a 1769 edition with the spelling and wording!

    After all, we are still talking about the KJV! :rolleyes:
     
    #349 EdSutton, Oct 23, 2008
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    EdSutton,remarkable post! Thanks for all that solid information and flawless logic which will be dismissed by some here by virtue of their fiat.
     
    #350 Rippon, Oct 23, 2008
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Antiaging
    I've been checking KJVs to see if they are VALID (meaning of VALID noted below).
    This new KJV I've checked is also VALID

    Added today (23oct2008): KJVapostolic


    Here are the good hits:
    KJM -- kingjamesman -- http://www.kingjamesman.com/
    KJVapostolic found at:
    --- http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/search.html

    Here is the test source: (used as the 'standard'):
    "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles" at:

    http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

    Here are the other Bible's I've checked which do not pass the test:

    1879 - KJV1879 Edition in Today's Parallel Bible
    LaHaye - LaHaye's Prophecy Study Bible )KJV(
    Jeffery - Jeffery's KJV PROPHECY Study Bible
    1851 - Granny's American Society Bible (asb)
    KJB-PCE - Pure Cambridge Edition (CBE) of the KJV found on-line here:
    --- http://www.bibleprotector.com/KJB-PCE.pdf
    JIL -- (incomplete) -- http://jesus-is-lord.com/
    OB -- Online Baptist -- http://www.onlinebaptist.com/biblesearch/
    e-sword -- e-sword KJV with Strong's Numbers (Feb 2005 download)
    Think - Think Bible -- http://forums.thinkbible.org/bible.html



    ------------------------------------
    QUICK CHECK LIST WHEN BUYING A KING JAMES BIBLE

    Scripture Reference
    The Real Bible
    Counterfeit

    GENESIS 1:1
    heaven
    heavens

    GENESIS 1:2
    Capital S (Spirit)
    lower case s (spirit) - Jeffery, 1851

    GENESIS 8:1
    asswaged
    assuaged - Jeffery, 1851, e-sword

    GENESIS 11:3
    throughly
    thoroughly 1873, Jeffery, OB, e-sword, Think

    GENESIS 11:3
    morter
    mortar - 1851, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    GENESIS 12:1
    shew
    show - Jeffery, e-sword

    GENESIS 21:26
    to day
    today - LaHaye, Jeffery, JIL, e-sword

    GENESIS 23:8
    intreat
    entreat - 1851, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    GENESIS 24:57
    enquire
    inquire - 1873, LaHaye, 1851, KJB-PCE, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    GENESIS 30:37
    chesnut
    chestnut - LaHaye, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    GENESIS 31:42
    labour
    labor e-sword

    GENESIS 41:38
    Capital S (Spirit)
    lower case s (spirit)- 1873, 1851, Jeffery

    EXODUS 8:23
    to morrow
    tomorrow - Jeffery, e-sword

    EXODUS 24:6
    basons
    basins - 1851, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    EXODUS 25:30
    shewbread
    showbread - Jeffery

    EXODUS 25:30
    alway
    always - Jeffery, e-sword

    LEVITICUS 25:9
    jubile
    jubilee - 1851, Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    NUMBERS 10:25
    rereward
    rearward - 1851, Jeffery, e-sword

    NUMBERS 22:26
    further
    farther

    1 SAMUEL 18:6
    musick
    music - Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    PSALMS 149:6
    twoedged
    two-edged - LaHaye, 1851, JIL, Think,


    ISAIAH 59:17
    cloke
    cloak - 1851, Jeffery, OB, e-sword, Think,

    MATTHEW 1:19
    publick
    public - Jeffery, OB, e-sword

    MATTHEW 4:1
    Capital S (Spirit)
    lower case s (spirit) - LaHaye, JIL, e-sword, Think,

    LUKE 2:11
    Saviour
    Savior, e-sword

    PHILLIPIANS 3:17
    ensample
    example, Jeffery, e-sword

    1 TIMOTHY 6:20
    so called
    so-called

    JAMES 4:14
    vapour
    vapor, e-sword

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

    This is the second good KJV1769 family of editions that I've found!
    :godisgood:
     
    #351 Ed Edwards, Oct 23, 2008
  12. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What a criterium!!! And I thought you were too generous, Ed Edwards!
     
    #352 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Oct 24, 2008
  13. antiaging

    antiaging New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not surprising that vaticanus was found in Europe. In both Alexandria and Rome there were major schools of gnosticism.
    Robert Stewart said:
    Contemporaries of Valentinus, in Rome, were Marcion and Tatian. The
    Gnostic Marcion was expelled from the church in Rome in AD 144. One
    of the Christian "Church Fathers", Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his
    followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not
    acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according
    to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are
    authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers;
    Vol. I; pp 434-435)

    Tatian is notorious for fabricating his Diatessaron in which he
    introduced corrupt readings to a harmonisation of the four Gospels in
    support of Gnosticism. Bruce M Metzger writes: "Tatian's Harmony of
    the Gospels contained several textual alterations which lent support
    to ascetic or encratite views." (The Text of the New Testament; Bruce
    M Metzger; Oxford University Press; 1964; p 201)

    As you see there were gnostic scripture mutilators in Europe.
    Another reason why the parchiaments containing the corrupted gnostic texts lasted longer is that they were on more expensive sheep skin parchiaments.
    So, climate is not the only reason that parchiaments can be older.

    You see that sentence by Iranaeus, "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures".
    It shows that what you said in 3 is wrong.
    Gnostics did mutilate Christian scriptures.

    And your number 2 is questionable. One of the websites that I used in this discussion showed details of how gnostic doctrine is in the changes to the new testament scriptures.
    The changes in doctrine noted by Burton, in Let's weigh the evidence shows gnostic influence.

    Robert Stewart further speaks of gnostics corrupting New testament scriptures:

    Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) attempted to fuse Gnosticism with
    Christianity in a more skilful way than Basilides and Valentinus.
    Clement was a follower of Tatian and succeeded Pantaenus as Principal
    at the theological School of Alexandria in AD 190.
     
    #353 antiaging, Oct 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2008
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    As noted previously Burton is a liar. I have the book in my office. It is a joke. Furthermore, for people trying to corrupt the Bible, they sure did a bad job of it. These were the most inept corrupters of a text that have ever been known. What a testimony to the power of God, that he preserved his word so magnificently from the hands of these intentional corrupters.
     
    #354 Pastor Larry, Oct 24, 2008
  15. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right; if speculations of Gnostic corruptions of surviving Bible manuscripts are correct, those Gnostics did an awful job. Those ancient manuscripts have readings which are very unfavorable to Gnostic teachings.

    Notice that when it was shown to Antiaging that not all the ancient manuscripts came from Egypt at all, he proposes this novel idea that the Gnostic corruptions occurred at Rome. Never mind that we do not know if any of the surviving manuscripts were made at Rome; Codex Vaticanus may have been made somewhere else in Europe and only later came to Rome.

    He also does not have anything about other ancient manuscripts found in Europe. Further, he has not a thing to say about the ancient manuscript from Asia.

    He did not answer if he thinks that every one of the dozens of papyrus manuscripts from c. 100, the second century, and third century were made by Gnostics. I think it would be ludicrous to assert that every single one of those manuscripts were made by Gnostics. Yet I do not doubt that he would assert that.

    Antiaging keeps referring us back to Barry Burton's "Let's Weigh the Evidence" which is a book with little evidence but much speculation and impassioned rhetoric. It has been shown to him that the `funny Kool Aid' he is taking in has lethal problems against verified reality. His stretching, his speculating, his shifting around suggests to me that we are discussing this subject with an individual who is determined to believe what s/he has decided to regardless of where the evidence points.
     
    #355 Darron Steele, Oct 24, 2008
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    And we certainly know that anything found on a website (which lays perfectly while still allowing one to write anything they opt for, onto it) is absolutely impeccable and immutable, correct?? :rolleyes:

    Marcion, known also as Marcion of Pontus and Marcion of Sinope in reference to his place of birth, is probably best fittingly known as Marcion, the Heretic, for with little doubt, his views are among the most heretical faced by the early church, in the first half of the 2nd century, and remain among the upper echelons of such, to this day. Similarly, these views remain to reappear again and again, as well.

    However, the opinion of Barry Burton (whom, it would appear, seems to be a favorite author secondarily cited by you) notwithstanding, it is a serious misreading to oversimplify Marcion as a Gnostic, IMO, for many of the views of Marcionism are completely incompatible with those of Gnosticism, although there are some similarities in a few of these views, as well.

    (Incidentally, Barry Burton makes some other advocates of thinking that is similar to his, look very good, by comparison, including several who are often quoted on the BB, FTR.) :rolleyes:

    The Encyclopaedia Britannica sums this up, in an excellent manner, where it states this, regarding Marcionism:
    Well put!

    Incidentally, Language Cop says the word you keep hunting for is spelled "parchment", not "parchiament" as you have repeatedly written it, so he knows it is not a typo!

    Ed
     
    #356 EdSutton, Oct 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2008
  17. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Would you expect anything less from a person who thinks the Roman Catholic Church is spying on him through his television?
     
    #357 Amy.G, Oct 24, 2008
  18. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you serious? Is this an exaggeration?
     
    #358 Darron Steele, Oct 24, 2008
  19. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Unfortunately, it's not. Search on antiaging's past posts and you'll see. I THINK he even mentions it in this thread, but I could be mistaken.

    Oh - and he believes Noah's Ark was a spaceship piloted by angels.
     
    #359 annsni, Oct 24, 2008
  20. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was concerned of that. :(
     
    #360 Darron Steele, Oct 24, 2008
Page 18 of 20
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...