Question between 2 sides.

Correct!! It is plain in God's word(KJB)that Antiochan manuscripts are the word of God;the KJB comes from said manuscripts.It says nothing concerning Alexandria being where the word of God is.


P.S. Dont try using Acts 18:24 to prove somthing;is says NOTHING about the word of God being published there!!

 

My favorite KJB proof-text is
Acts 18:36.

 

I am usually not one to use pejorative words, but honestly, this Chick stuff is IMO a display of intellectual dishonesty.

First of all no one can tell us which version of the KJV(1611/Apcrypha-1769/No Apocrypha/Oxford/Cambridge Edition) is the “pure” Word of God.

Only one can be the “pure” Word of God because we are told by the KJVO things which are not the same are different (unless of course you subscribe to the KJVO system of double-think/double-speak) then certain things (of their choosing) can somehow though different be the same since hundreds of differences are less than thousands in spite of the fact that only one difference comprises a difference.

Second, even if we could somehow discern which version of the KJB is the perfect one (and following is a question which none of the KJVO has tried even with KJVO double-speak to answer):

What does this authority of “re-inspiration” of the Scripture make the Church of England the First born child of the Church of Rome?.

A church, who to this day, practices a form of baptismal regeneration (Paedo-baptism), a form of the sacrifice of the Transubstantiation mass of the Church of Rome (The Consubstantiation Celebration of the Eucharist) by ordained “priests” whose history is blood-stained by the murder and persecution of our Dissenter and Baptist brethren.

No amount of double-think/double-speak can change the history or the doctrine of the Church of England.

And OBTW why are the KJVO Baptists not members of this Church from whose “blessed” lips flow the (re)Inspired words of Scriptures?
Will you sacrifice EVERY ONE of the Baptist distinctives to become the clone of the KJVO leadership, the “secretary” of God”?

HankD

 

Yes. I happen to by and large accept Scofield's dispensationalism (who by the way was not KJVO). I grew up in a church that was perhaps even a little unbalanced in its emphasis on escatology. It was definitely dispensational.

Excuse my error. I should have used the word period (or era) instead of "age."

Even accepting this hyper-dispensationalist view, you are still left with the fact that true Bible believing Christians were terribly persecuted during the era you would call the "philadelphian church age". More specifically, the group that gave us the KJV persecuted and even killed our Baptist forebearers. The freedom that eventually helped foster the great 18th, 19th, and 20th century revivals also gave us the freedom to translate the Bible. The church-state of England denied freedom for both by requiring submission to the Church of England and its "authorized version" of the Bible.

However you might want to interpret these churches, the 17th century Church of England was definitely NOT philadelphian in their nature.

More martyrs died in the 20th century than all others combined. The gospel has reached more of the world at one time during the past 100 years than any period in history.

If only half of the Americans who claim to be born again Christians today are actually saved, there are still more of us alive today than the total population (saved/unsaved) of England in 1611.

Literally millions of people are being won to Christ with MV's and by non-KJVO KJV users today. Millions of Christians are growing and bearing fruit that never use the KJV.

These facts are not indicative of your laodecian claim. It is historical revisionism at its worst to say that the state of "the church" in 1611 is better than the state of "the church" in 2003. The "church" is still made up of people indwelled by almighty God Himself who according to Romans 8 is conforming them to the image of Christ. A true Christian in 1611 England could just have easily looked around him, seen the oppression of the CoE, and lamented the state of Christianity.

There are examples of all 7 churches in throughout church history and today.

 

The underlying manuscripts of the AV1611 DID come from Antioch;</font>[/QUOTE] No they didn't. There is no evidence that any of the mss in Erasmus possession were created in Antioch or even copied from mss created in antioch. Further, many of the NT books were definitely not written in Antioch providing one more refutation of this whole line of reasoning.

I think you missed my point. You cannot draw generalizations about areas then apply them to this topic. It simply doesn't hold water.

God did use Egypt for preservation on more than one occasion including once to preserve the Living Word from destruction. This fact neither validates nor negates Bible mss coming from the region... just as God's use of Antioch neither validates nor negates mss that scholars have classified as Antiochian.

Read the entire NT. The Word of the Lord was published throughout the known world.

The Old Latin Bibles that pre-date the "oldest and best" mss do not support the KJV readings in I John 5:7-8 or Revelation 22. They support the MV's.

It's underlying text does derive from Antiochan manuscripts,and as you probaly already know,that Erasmus' text and Bibles derived thereof are banned by the RCC.All of this is very elementary. </font>[/QUOTE]It is also very irrelevant. The RCC doesn't use the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc either. That neither proves nor disproves their value.

But to the original point, Erasmus used 6-10 mss from the Byzantine family. All of the mss were different and he made choices based on his personal opinion when there were variants. He was a scholar and, like those "scholars" KJVO's love to attack, he was most likely an "unbelieving scholar" as he never renounced the RCC or its doctrine. He opposed its abusive practices but not its ideals nor authority.

The Antioch designation is a matter of speculation by scholars. The mss designated by this name are similar and seem to have originated in the broad region north of Jerusalem and east of Rome. It is not a rule stating that all mss classified as "Antiochian" have their source there. It is possible that a mss be classified as "Antiochian" without any direct link to any document produced in that city.

 

That's interesting, however can't these Alexandrian supporters see this point what Gipp tries to tell us the difference between Antioch and Alexandria? </font>[/QUOTE]
You are citing Chick Publications as your reference?

 

That's interesting, however can't these Alexandrian supporters see this point what Gipp tries to tell us the difference between Antioch and Alexandria? </font>[/QUOTE]The technical name for Gipp's type of argument is "eisegesis," or reading into Biblical texts that which is not there. I could just as easily argue that Syria (the region of Antioch) cannot be trusted on Biblical grounds, since the first mention of Syria in the Bible is with reference to Laban, the man who deceived Jacob by marrying him to the wrong woman (Gen. 25:20, Gen. 29:20-26). Therefore, by Gipp's reasoning, should we be suspicious of manuscripts from Syria (Antioch) because they deceive us into accepting additions that were not originally in God's Word to begin with? I could also point out that Egypt is the Biblical place of God's providential preservation. The first mention of Egypt in the Bible occurs when Abraham and his family are in danger of starving to death because of famine, so they go to Egypt for food and their lives are preserved (Gen. 12:10). When Joseph was in danger of being killed by his own brothers, he ended up in Egypt where his life was preserved (Gen. 37:28). When Jacob and his family were in danger of starving to death because of a famine, they went to Egypt for food and their lives were preserved (Gen. 42:1-3). And of course, the first mention of Egypt in the New Testament is as the place where Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to escape Herod's slaughter, and where Jesus' life was preserved. If God chose Egypt as the place where the Living Word of God (Jn. 1:1) was providentially preserved, then obviously God has told us through this that Egypt is the place where the Written Word of God has also been preserved. With this strong Biblical warrant we can trust the Egyptian manuscripts implicitly -- right?

 

Ah,but it holds much relevancy;the "bibles" you just listed share the same underlying texts as ALL RCC "bibles" do;deny if you will what I just stated,but it is FACT!!

I could care less at what these "scholars" have to say;Acts 13 makes it crystal clear as to where the word of God comes from-Antioch,Syria-A.K.A. the Byzantine manuscripts.God made it perfectly clear that his word came from Byzantine manuscripts and makes NO mention of Alexandria,Egypt concerning the word of God.

Yes,Antioch,Syria.Not Alexandria,Egypt.The KJB hails from Byzantine manuscripts,therefore it is the word of God,period,end of discussion;the proof is in scripture;your beloved Alexandria has been found wanting!!

 

[mock]Makes sense to me.
I got my Dr. degree from a pack of bubble gum.
I got my preaching certificate from a book of matches.
Why shouldn't i get my doctrine from
a comic book?[/mock]

 

that underlying RCC text wldn't happen to have been done by the Romanist Priest D. Erasmus, wld it? does it go by the name "Textus Receptus"?

great, u say it's in the Scripture--any BCV. which verse in Acts 13 mentions the Byzantine manuscripts? or does lack of Scripture indicate the end of discussion?

 

BTW, on a page in the Chick group,
on one of the comic books, they discuss
a secret plot, nay, a deamon plot
to pervert the KJV1611. KJV1611
is contaminated with the apocrypha
and those pesky translator sidenotes.
So it is only the KJV1769
(still available today) that is
perfect and pure and free from the
contamination of the papist whores.
This varies with most of what i've heard
from KJBOs on this board. They accept
any KJV (like KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1873)
as being the perfect word
of God preserved for this time and this
generation.

Personally I respect more the beliefs
of the non-comic-book party on this matter.

 

Nope.There was not ANY RCC "bibles" that came from his(Erasmus')manuscripts.His manuscripts and Bibles translated from his work-are banned by the RCC.

Fact:the same manuscripts in todays "bibles" are the same as the ones underlying RCC "bibles",period..

Read Acts 13;makes NO MENTION OF ALEXANDRIA,EGYPT AND THE WORD OF GOD;it does make mention of Antioch(Byzantine)being where the word of God came from,not Egypt.Period!!!

Nope.Scripture(KJB) tells me that you loose;game over.

 

what evidence do u have that his bible, the TR, was ever banned by the RCC? or is that an overplayed imagination?

but more to the contrary, didn't Erasmus edit his TR in compliance to the RCC's demands? here's a source, in case imagination runs short: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

ok, lemme speak s-l-o-w-l-y:

Acts 13:1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

it does NOT make mention of Antioch or Alexandria as being where the Word of God came from--period.

in fact, if u wanna know where it came from, it's fr Egypt: Matthew 2:15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

realise, of course, that i'm just using some of ur KJBO gymnastics but then, how many KJBOs wld geddit?

so, to conclude, what u've said is true: Nope.Scripture(KJB, NIV, TR, whatever version) tells me that you loose;game over.

 

That never stopped you from perpetuating the complete misrepresentation of Psalm 12:6-7!!

 

Click here: Trinity </font>[/QUOTE]i clicked, n it contained no refutation of the Roman Catholiqueness of Erasmus' TR.

Onus is on u to prove that an RCC bible (the TR), edited by an ordained RCC priest, n supervised over several revisions/editions by RCC superiors, is not an RCC bible. like they say, it walks like, quacks like ...

do u have another link? otherwise, u'll do well to desist fr making imaginative claims.

 

I don't agree with Gipp's poor interpretation of the Scriptures for reasons I've already stated:

Antioch, Alexandria, and Gipp's Eisegesis

 

I absolutely DO NOT believe what "Gipp explained."
I am also absolutely late for work, so I will write more later.